Collapsing Ceiling Was Emergency Condition

LVT Number: #22026

Tenant complained of a reduction in services based on a collapsing bathroom ceiling. A month after landlord received notice of tenant's complaint from the DRA, landlord requested an additional 60 days to respond. Landlord claimed that the ceiling was an issue in a court case. The DRA ruled against landlord and reduced tenant's rent. Landlord appealed and lost. In the court case landlord cited, tenant claimed that the apartment had bedbugs. The bathroom ceiling wasn't an issue. And the bathroom ceiling was an emergency condition, so landlord wasn't entitled to extra time to respond.

Tenant complained of a reduction in services based on a collapsing bathroom ceiling. A month after landlord received notice of tenant's complaint from the DRA, landlord requested an additional 60 days to respond. Landlord claimed that the ceiling was an issue in a court case. The DRA ruled against landlord and reduced tenant's rent. Landlord appealed and lost. In the court case landlord cited, tenant claimed that the apartment had bedbugs. The bathroom ceiling wasn't an issue. And the bathroom ceiling was an emergency condition, so landlord wasn't entitled to extra time to respond. The DHCR inspection confirmed that there was a two-inch by four-inch hole in the ceiling. The affected area also was blistered and discolored, with peeling paint and plaster due to leaks.

95 Greenpoint Avenue LLC: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. WL210027RO (4/24/09) [3-pg. doc.]

Downloads

WL210027RO.pdf82.5 KB