Small Section of Roof Not Replaced

November 1, 2004

LVT Number: 17674

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on a number of improvements, including roof replacement. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed, claiming that work wasn't performed on one section of the roof. The DHCR ruled against tenants. Landlord's engineer's report showed that the small section of the roof that wasn't replaced was part of an appendage to the building and wasn't integral to the main roof. Also, this section was replaced six or seven years ago.

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on a number of improvements, including roof replacement. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed, claiming that work wasn't performed on one section of the roof. The DHCR ruled against tenants. Landlord's engineer's report showed that the small section of the roof that wasn't replaced was part of an appendage to the building and wasn't integral to the main roof. Also, this section was replaced six or seven years ago.

80-40 Lefferts Blvd: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. Nos. LG130136RT & LH130028RT (6/8/04) [8-pg. doc.]

Downloads

LG130136RT.pdf463.78 KB

Topics

More like this