Landlord Corrected Roach Problem

LVT Number: 14752

(Decision submitted by James R. Marino of the Manhattan law firm of Kucker & Bruh, LLP, attorneys for the landlord.) Tenant complained of a reduction in services based on a roach problem. The DRA ruled for tenant and reduced her rent. Landlord later applied for rent restoration. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenant requested reconsideration, and the rent restoration order was revoked. Landlord appealed and won. When tenant sought reconsideration, the DHCR sent an inspector to the building. The inspector found no proof of roaches on the second floor of tenant's building.

(Decision submitted by James R. Marino of the Manhattan law firm of Kucker & Bruh, LLP, attorneys for the landlord.) Tenant complained of a reduction in services based on a roach problem. The DRA ruled for tenant and reduced her rent. Landlord later applied for rent restoration. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenant requested reconsideration, and the rent restoration order was revoked. Landlord appealed and won. When tenant sought reconsideration, the DHCR sent an inspector to the building. The inspector found no proof of roaches on the second floor of tenant's building. So it was an error to rule for tenant. Tenant's rent was restored.

White: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. OF430032RT (1/3/01) [2-pg. doc.]

Downloads

OF430032RT.pdf237.14 KB