Architect's Report Submitted Too Late

LVT Number: 14439

Tenants complained of a reduction in required services. The DRA ruled for tenants and reduced their rents. Landlord later applied for rent restoration, claiming restoration of services. The DRA ruled against landlord. An inspection showed that the laundry room was still padlocked and that the roof door lock was missing. These were conditions on which the rent cut was based. Landlord appealed, claiming that it had submitted an architect's report to the DRA, stating that services had been restored. This was acceptable proof of restoration of services under DHCR Policy Statement 96-1.

Tenants complained of a reduction in required services. The DRA ruled for tenants and reduced their rents. Landlord later applied for rent restoration, claiming restoration of services. The DRA ruled against landlord. An inspection showed that the laundry room was still padlocked and that the roof door lock was missing. These were conditions on which the rent cut was based. Landlord appealed, claiming that it had submitted an architect's report to the DRA, stating that services had been restored. This was acceptable proof of restoration of services under DHCR Policy Statement 96-1. The DHCR ruled against landlord. Landlord submitted the architect's report a year after filing its rent restoration application and after a DHCR inspector found that services weren't restored. So landlord submitted the report too late. The DHCR's policy statement didn't apply in this case.

Fieldbridge Assocs.: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. OC230067RO (8/23/00) [2-pg. doc.]

Downloads

OC230067RO.pdf114.63 KB