Pointing Insufficient

July 31, 2007

LVT Number: #19805

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes for pointing and stucco work. The DRA ruled against landlord. Landlord appealed, claiming that pointing was done where needed on the building. The DHCR ruled against landlord. Landlord's MCI application was unclear. The work performed was actually parapet replacement, not mere pointing. Since landlord didn't do a complete replacement of the building parapet, the work didn't qualify as an MCI. Landlord also didn't submit a written statement from its contractor stating that necessary pointing was done on all sections of the building's exterior wall.

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes for pointing and stucco work. The DRA ruled against landlord. Landlord appealed, claiming that pointing was done where needed on the building. The DHCR ruled against landlord. Landlord's MCI application was unclear. The work performed was actually parapet replacement, not mere pointing. Since landlord didn't do a complete replacement of the building parapet, the work didn't qualify as an MCI. Landlord also didn't submit a written statement from its contractor stating that necessary pointing was done on all sections of the building's exterior wall. Landlord also didn't respond to the DRA's request for a diagram highlighting where the pointing work was done.

Mariani: DHCR Adm. Rev.Docket No. UI930001RO (5/2/07) [5-pg. doc.]

Downloads

UI 930001-RO.pdf231.48 KB

Topics

More like this