Facade Renovations Didn't Excuse Balcony and Window Conditions

LVT Number: #25653

Rent-stabilized tenant complained of a reduction in services. The DRA ruled for tenant and reduced his rent. Landlord appealed and lost. Landlord had advised tenants in April 2012 that facade and balcony improvements were expected to begin shortly. Landlord answered tenant's complaint in August 2012 claiming that balcony repairs were expected to be done before winter 2012. Landlord now argued in its PAR that it shouldn't be penalized for construction delays that resulted after Hurricane Sunday and other extraordinary weather conditions.

Rent-stabilized tenant complained of a reduction in services. The DRA ruled for tenant and reduced his rent. Landlord appealed and lost. Landlord had advised tenants in April 2012 that facade and balcony improvements were expected to begin shortly. Landlord answered tenant's complaint in August 2012 claiming that balcony repairs were expected to be done before winter 2012. Landlord now argued in its PAR that it shouldn't be penalized for construction delays that resulted after Hurricane Sunday and other extraordinary weather conditions. Landlord had spent over $10 million on facade renovations. But landlord had adequate time before Hurricane Sandy in October 2012 to restore tenant's balcony. DHCR inspection in January 2013 showed that tenant's living room windows, balcony, and balcony door were covered with plastic and weren't accessible or usable. At that time contractors were pointing and waterproofing the building exterior. 

Yorkshire Towers Company LP: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. BO410021RO (5/23/14) [4-pg. doc.]

Downloads

BO410021RO.pdf1.49 MB