Master TV Antenna Not Required

LVT Number: 12047

(Decision submitted by Irwin J. Cohen of the Manhattan law firm of Shaw & Binder, attorneys for the landlord.) Facts: Tenants complained of a reduction in building-wide services. They claimed landlord had previously provided master TV antenna service. The DHCR ruled for tenants, and landlord appealed. The court revoked the DHCR's order and sent the case back for further investigation. Ten tenants testified at a hearing that there were special outlets in their apartments for use with the master TV antenna. Landlord's employees claimed there was no master TV antenna since at least 1971.

(Decision submitted by Irwin J. Cohen of the Manhattan law firm of Shaw & Binder, attorneys for the landlord.) Facts: Tenants complained of a reduction in building-wide services. They claimed landlord had previously provided master TV antenna service. The DHCR ruled for tenants, and landlord appealed. The court revoked the DHCR's order and sent the case back for further investigation. Ten tenants testified at a hearing that there were special outlets in their apartments for use with the master TV antenna. Landlord's employees claimed there was no master TV antenna since at least 1971. DHCR: Tenants lose. The DHCR made a number of findings. Landlord never provided master antenna service on May 31, 1968-based date or thereafter. The living room outlets tenants described, which were attached to coaxial cable running to roof antennas, didn't prove master TV antenna service. Tenants didn't prove that landlord provided plugs ready to be attached to TV set that would act as master TV antenna system.

Various Tenants, 930 Grand Concourse: DHCR DRA Dckt. No. GI-630016-RP (8/11/97) [10-page document]

Downloads

GI-630016-RP.pdf375.74 KB