Two-Phase Project Wasn't Unified Plan

The DRA denied landlord's MCI rent hike application for pointing and waterproofing because it wasn't done as a comprehensive project. Landlord appealed and lost. Landlord claimed that the work was done as a two-phase project because it couldn't be performed during winter months and due to a delay in obtaining building permits. But landlord's proposal and cost estimate dated Sept. 17, 2005, showed that work was to be done on the north, east, and west facades. There was no indication that partial work was intended for the south facade. And the work landlord referred to as Phase I was done over three months between Nov. 24, 2005, and Feb. 6, 2006, while phase two didn't take place until between December 2007 and April 2008. Both projects were done during winter months, despite landlord's claim that it was unable to work during the winter and with an unjustified 22-month lag time in between.

50 Yonkers Terrace: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. YB910078RO (2/15/11) [3-pg. doc.]