Inspector Didn't Follow Proper Procedures

(Decision submitted by Patrick K. Munson of the Manhattan law firm of Kucker Kraus & Bruh, LLP, attorneys for the landlord.) Tenant complained of a reduction in services, claiming that heat and hot water were provided only some hours of the day. The DRA ruled against tenant. The inspection in July 1993 showed that hot water was adequate and heat wasn't required at that time of year. But the DRA stated that it would assign a new docket number to the heat complaint and reprocess it during the next heating season. After the inspection in December 1993, the DRA ruled for tenant because it found that heat was inadequate. Landlord appealed, claiming that the DHCR didn't follow its own procedures for heat and hot water complaints. The DHCR ruled against landlord, and landlord appealed, claiming that the DHCR's procedures in this case were arbitrary and unreasonable. The court ruled for landlord. The DHCR's inspection report didn't indicate whether the inspector checked for open windows, took readings in the center of the rooms, or made sure the radiator valve was turned on. This was especially important since, on the inspection date, the outside temperature was 13 degrees and the apartment temperature was found to be 65 degrees, just three degrees below the required minimum.

Pasadena Leasing Limited Partnership v. DHCR: Index No. 47191/96 (7/18/97) [5-page document]