Landlord Didn't Restore All Services

Tenant complained in 1993 of a reduction in services based on a number of conditions, including broken bathroom tiles. The DRA ruled for tenant and reduced his rent. Landlord applied in 1995 for rent restoration based on restoration of services. A DHCR inspection in 1996 showed that tenant's bathroom tiles were still broken. The DRA ruled against landlord, and landlord appealed. The DHCR denied landlord's PAR, and landlord started a court case. Landlord argued that the DHCR's decision was unreasonable and claimed that, by the time the DHCR inspected the apartment, the broken tiles found must have been a new condition. The court and appeals court ruled against landlord. The DHCR found that landlord either hadn't repaired the tiles in the first place, or had done such a poor repair job that they had broken again within a short period of time. Either way, the DHCR's decision that landlord hadn't made proper repairs was reasonable.

Sterling 350 Enterprises v. DHCR: NYLJ, p. 33, col. 3 (3/23/99) (App. Div. 2 Dept.; Santucci, JP, Joy, Friedmann, Goldstein, JJ)