Scaffolding Up Too Long

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on pointing, waterproofing, and exterior work to the front building facade, as well as scaffolding and professional engineering services. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed, claiming that the work wasn't building wide, that landlord's later work on the building's rear facade showed that the initial work was done on a piecemeal basis, that leaks occurred in some apartments after completion of the work, that the DHCR didn't consider outstanding hazardous building violations, and that the work was completed more than two years before landlord filed its application.
The DHCR ruled against tenants, except on the question of the scaffolding. Landlord wasn't required to perform work on all exposed sides of the building facade. Landlord's work on the front facade qualified as an MCI. Tenants submitted insufficient proof of apartment leaks and, in some cases, submitted any such claim only for the first time on appeal. Landlord also proved that as of Aug. 18, 2005, all "C" violations at the building had been cleared by HPD. The fact that landlord subsequently worked on the back facade wall wasn't proof in and of itself that the front facade work wasn't comprehensive at the time the order was issued. And at this point, landlord had filed no MCI application for the rear wall facade work. The DHCR did find that the scaffolding had been erected two years before landlord started the facade work. Therefore, tenants shouldn't be responsible for the cost of the scaffolding for the period before the work commenced. That portion of the cost was deducted from the MCI rent hikes.

36 Gramercy Park East: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. TJ430068RT (9/3/08) [6-pg. doc.]