Landlord Needn't Correct Minor Condition

(Decision submitted by Karen Schwartz-Sidrane of the Hewlett, N.Y., law firm of Sidrane & Schwartz-Sidrane, LLP, attorneys for the landlord.) Tenant complained of a reduction in services. The DRA ruled for tenant in 1993 based on 12 apartment conditions. In 2004, new landlord filed a rent restoration application. The DHCR's inspector found that three of the conditions still existed. A two-foot by two-foot portion of the living room floor was warped; seven or eight bathroom wall tiles had hairline cracks; and the area above the wall tiles over the tub had bulging and peeling paint, but no cracks, in a four-foot by four-foot area. Based on the inspection, the DRA ruled against landlord. Landlord appealed and lost. Landlord then brought a court case, claiming that the DHCR's decision was unreasonable, and landlord won. Landlord argued that the remaining conditions were minor. The DHCR argued that prior landlord didn't raise this argument in response to tenant's complaint. The court said that the rules concerning de minimis conditions weren't in place when tenant's complaint was filed. And a prior court decision recognized that minor conditions needn't be corrected before a rent restoration order can be granted.

601 West Realty LLC v. DHCR: Index No. 111022/05 (Sup. Ct. NY 7/18/06; Abdus-Salaam, J) [3-pg. doc.)