Inspection Showed Services Restored

June 30, 1999

LVT Number: 13363

(Decision submitted by James R. Marino of the Manhattan law firm of Kucker Kraus & Bruh, LLP, attorneys for the landlord.) Tenant complained of a reduction in required services. The DRA ruled for tenant and reduced his rent. Landlord later applied for rent restoration, claiming that services had been restored. The DRA ruled for landlord, and tenant appealed. Tenant claimed that a number of conditions still existed in common areas of the building. The DHCR ruled against tenant.

(Decision submitted by James R. Marino of the Manhattan law firm of Kucker Kraus & Bruh, LLP, attorneys for the landlord.) Tenant complained of a reduction in required services. The DRA ruled for tenant and reduced his rent. Landlord later applied for rent restoration, claiming that services had been restored. The DRA ruled for landlord, and tenant appealed. Tenant claimed that a number of conditions still existed in common areas of the building. The DHCR ruled against tenant. A DHCR inspection showed no evidence of roaches in public areas of the building and no proof of debris in the alley on the side of the building. So the DRA properly restored tenant's rent.

Gaynor: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. ML230124RT (5/17/99) [2-pg. doc.]

Downloads

ML230124RT.pdf87.55 KB

Topics

More like this