Graffiti Condition Not Minor

Tenants complained of a reduction in building-wide services based on a number of conditions. The DRA ruled for tenants and reduced their rents. But the DRA found that exterior graffiti conditions were minor and weren't one of the reasons for the rent reductions. Tenants appealed, claiming that the graffiti still persisted and that this wasn't a minor condition. The DHCR ruled for tenants and added graffiti removal to the list of repairs landlord must make. The DHCR's 1995 interoffice memo on ''de minimis'' conditions stated that graffiti would be considered a minor condition if landlord submitted sworn statements of ongoing maintenance indicating a reasonable time period when the graffiti would be addressed. Landlord had submitted a letter to the DRA stating that the graffiti was removed and the building's walls were treated in 1989, but that it would be very costly to continue to remove the graffiti every year or two. This didn't show that landlord was providing ongoing maintenance to remove the graffiti.

1641 Park Avenue Assocs./Various Tenants: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. Nos. LD530060RO, LD530109RT (1/8/98) [4-page document]