Pointing and Waterproofing Work Was Distinct from Prior Pointing Work

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes. The DRA ruled for landlord based on installation of a new roof, scaffolding, pointing, waterproofing, and lintels. Tenants appealed and lost. Tenants claimed that the MCI costs were overstated. But the fact that the actual cost of the work was greater than the original cost estimate on a PW3 form filed with DOB wasn't, by itself, proof of an attempt to inflate costs. The project architect verified the claimed costs in a submitted statement. Tenants also pointed out that landlord had received prior MCI increases for pointing and waterproofing. But these were separate and distinct MCIs for different portions of the building and didn't bar the current MCI increase. And the DRA deducted $8,700 from the current MCI costs in accordance with DHCR policy. Tenants also argued that the lintel, parapet, pointing, and waterproofing work should be considered repairs or routine maintenance. But this work qualified for MCI rent increases because it was performed as part of a building-wide comprehensive exterior renovation. 

Moore/Zimmerman: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. GM210049RT (8/16/22)[3-pg. document]