Doorman Service Reduced

May 31, 2002

LVT Number: 15885

Tenants complained to the DHCR of a reduction in services based on a reduction in the number of hours of doorman service at the building. The DHCR ruled for tenants and reduced their rents. Landlord appealed. The court and appeals court ruled against landlord. The DHCR made its ruling after a hearing at which tenants testified that they no longer had 16-hour-per-day doorman service. They said there was no doorman 60 percent to 75 percent of the time, creating a security problem. The DHCR's decision was reasonably based on the hearing evidence.

Tenants complained to the DHCR of a reduction in services based on a reduction in the number of hours of doorman service at the building. The DHCR ruled for tenants and reduced their rents. Landlord appealed. The court and appeals court ruled against landlord. The DHCR made its ruling after a hearing at which tenants testified that they no longer had 16-hour-per-day doorman service. They said there was no doorman 60 percent to 75 percent of the time, creating a security problem. The DHCR's decision was reasonably based on the hearing evidence. And the DHCR properly reduced tenants' rents to the rate in effect before the last rent increase landlord had collected when it got notice of their complaint. There was no unreasonable delay in processing tenants' complaint.

Sutton House Assocs. v. DHCR: NYLJ, 5/9/02, p. 18, col. 3 (App. Div.1 Dept.; Williams, PJ, Nardelli, Saxe, Rosenberger, Marlow, JJ)

Topics

More like this