Pointing Work Not Comprehensive

Landlord applied for MCI rent increases based on pointing, waterproofing, and other related work. The DRA ruled for landlord, and tenants appealed, claiming that the work was shoddy and wasn't performed on the entire building. Tenants complained that there were still leaks and dangerous conditions. The DHCR ruled for tenants, finding that landlord's pointing and waterproofing weren't comprehensive. Landlord's contractor's statement said that the contractor had examined all exposed surfaces throughout ``part of the'' building and had done all work necessary to make ``part of the'' building watertight, as per the contract. The words "the entire'' were crossed out in two places and were replaced by the words "part of the.''

Various Tenants of 360 Central Park West: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. Nos. HI430101RT, HI430132RT [3-page document]