Some Tenants Exempt from MCI Rent Hike

(Decision submitted by David Hershey-Webb, of the Manhattan law firm of Himmelstein, McConnell, Gribben, Donoghue & Joseph, attorneys for the tenants.)

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on facade work. The DRA ruled for landlord, but permanently exempted 25 apartments from the rent increase based on DHCR inspections that found moisture-related damage in those apartments. Landlord and tenants appealed. Tenants claimed that no MCI rent hike should have been granted because the work was defective, incomplete, and done on a piecemeal basis. They also argued that the DHCR should have inspected more apartments. Landlord claimed that any exemption should have been only temporary so that it could correct the defective work. The DHCR ruled against both tenants and landlord in a decision that clarified a prior PAR ruling dated Oct. 8, 2008. Landlord performed pointing and waterproofing where needed at the building and was entitled to the MCI rent hikes. The building contained over 400 apartments. Since possible seepage was found in only 25 apartments, this didn't prove that the work was done improperly. The fact that the work took three years didn't mean that it was done piecemeal. There were no extended gaps in time during the work that would indicate that it was done in phases. As to landlord's claim, tenants showed that the seepage occurred immediately after the work was completed. And the DHCR inspections were conducted three years later. Landlord had ample time to correct the conditions but failed to do so. In its new decision, the DHCR also stated that the reason why tenant's claim that additional apartments should have been inspected has been denied was that the issue of defective workmanship in those additional apartments was being raised for the first time on appeal.

Clermont Tenants Association/Clermont York Associates: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket Nos. UA410049RT, UD410012RO (11/19/08) [5-pg. doc.]