Pointing Done in Piecemeal Fashion

Facts: Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on pointing and parapet work. The DRA ruled against landlord. The DRA found that landlord hadn't submitted an actual contract for the work. The contract landlord did submit, for the sum of $794,000, was made two months after the work was completed. In addition, the DRA found that the work had been done in a piecemeal fashion over an 18-month period. Landlord appealed, claiming that it had a verbal agreement with its contractor, which it later put into a written contract. DHCR: Landlord loses. The DHCR found it unbelievable that landlord would undertake a unified project costing nearly $800,000 with no written contract, no written proposal, and no written specifications with a contractor it claimed to have no relationship with. Landlord also didn't advise the DRA that it had filed a J-51 tax benefit application with HPD. Landlord merely performed periodic Local Law 10 compliance with incidental pointing. This was done in a piecemeal fashion, and was not preconceived as a unified pointing installation.

Shurin: DHCR Admin. Rev. Dckt. Nos. PI430044RO; PK430066RO (5/29/02) [12-pg. doc.]