Roof Installation Done in Piecemeal Manner

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on the installation of a new roof. The DRA ruled against landlord, who appealed and lost. DHCR inspection showed that a "silver coating" was applied only to the front section of the roof, that parapet flashing of the front section of the roof appeared older than the rear section of the roof, and that the front and rear of the penthouse roof was covered with rubber matting, but the rear of the penthouse roof also was covered with artificial grass. Landlord admitted that the roof work was done in two phases, one several months after the other.  But the work was done pursuant to two separate contracts. The front portion of the work was done between May and June 2007. The back portion roof work was performed between November and December 2007. Therefore, the work was done in a piecemeal manner and didn't qualify as an MCI.

710 Amsterdam Avenue: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. XF430040RO (2/20/14) [3-pg. doc.]