Leak Damage Not Minor

LVT Number: #20478

Tenants complained of a reduction in building-wide services. The DRA ruled for tenants and reduced their rents based on an inspection showing that the wall at the building's north entrance was water damaged in several areas. In addition, the east side lower wall in the laundry room was leak damaged in several areas. There was also leak damage to the north and west areas of an interior garage. Landlord appealed, claiming that the leak damage was a minor condition that didn't warrant a rent reduction. The DHCR ruled against landlord.

Tenants complained of a reduction in building-wide services. The DRA ruled for tenants and reduced their rents based on an inspection showing that the wall at the building's north entrance was water damaged in several areas. In addition, the east side lower wall in the laundry room was leak damaged in several areas. There was also leak damage to the north and west areas of an interior garage. Landlord appealed, claiming that the leak damage was a minor condition that didn't warrant a rent reduction. The DHCR ruled against landlord. As tenants argued, the leak damage was caused by exterior water seepage and penetration. The leaks were substantial, and not cosmetic or minor. Photographs submitted by tenants showed substantial flooding in some areas.

Cyline Properties Co.: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. VL630042RO (4/25/08) [2-pg. doc.]

Downloads

VL630042RO.pdf201.56 KB