Waterproofing Alone Doesn't Qualify as MCI

LVT Number: #20791

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on waterproofing. The DRA ruled against landlord. Landlord appealed and lost. Pointing and waterproofing where needed constitutes an MCI for which landlords can collect rent increases. But waterproofing by itself doesn't qualify as an MCI. In his application, landlord stated that the building exterior needed to be cleaned of vines and repointed as needed and waterproofed. But the contract for the work states only that ivy vines would be removed and two coats of Thoro-Coat would be applied to the rear west facade.

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on waterproofing. The DRA ruled against landlord. Landlord appealed and lost. Pointing and waterproofing where needed constitutes an MCI for which landlords can collect rent increases. But waterproofing by itself doesn't qualify as an MCI. In his application, landlord stated that the building exterior needed to be cleaned of vines and repointed as needed and waterproofed. But the contract for the work states only that ivy vines would be removed and two coats of Thoro-Coat would be applied to the rear west facade. There was no mention of pointing in landlord's contract.

21 West 10th Street: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. WC420007RO (7/30/08) [2-pg. doc.]

Downloads

WC420007RO.pdf130.79 KB