Violations Resolved Before MCI Application Was Filed Were Irrelevant

Landlord applied to the DHCR for MCI rent hikes based on installation of a new boiler/burner, asbestos removal, asbestos air monitor, boiler control system, and chimney. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenant appealed and lost. First, tenant claimed that three Stop Work Orders and 13 DOB violations were issued during the MCI work. But review of the SWOs and the violations showed that these items were all resolved in 2018, before the MCI application was filed in 2019, and therefore were irrelevant. Second, tenant claimed that landlord claimed costs for asbestos removal in areas of the building where no asbestos was removed. But landlord's contract for the asbestos work showed that the scope of asbestos removal was limited to removal of asbestos from all visible piping in the boiler room and the basement. Third, tenant argued that landlord's proof of payment for the MCIs was insufficient. But landlord submitted copies of the contracts, contractors' affirmations, cancelled checks, and bank statements proving the costs. Finally, tenant claimed for the first time that wireless space temperature sensors weren't installed in the rent-regulated apartments. But this claim was raised for the first time on appeal and therefore wouldn't be considered. Also, tenants had told the DRA that the cost for that work should be disallowed because it was cosmetic.

Lawler: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. JR410019RT (2/24/23)[3-pg. document]