Nonfunctioning Security Camera

November 1, 2003

LVT Number: 16953

Tenant complained of a reduction in services. The DRA ruled for tenant and reduced her rent because a building security camera was inoperative. Landlord appealed, claiming that the security camera wasn't a required service. The DHCR ruled against landlord. Tenant showed that the camera had been installed many years ago after tenant moved in. The camera had been working until six months before tenant complained, when the cable was cut from the roof. This was a required service.

Tenant complained of a reduction in services. The DRA ruled for tenant and reduced her rent because a building security camera was inoperative. Landlord appealed, claiming that the security camera wasn't a required service. The DHCR ruled against landlord. Tenant showed that the camera had been installed many years ago after tenant moved in. The camera had been working until six months before tenant complained, when the cable was cut from the roof. This was a required service.

Realty 18 LLC: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. RE410056RO (10/31/03) [3-pg. doc.]

Downloads

RE410056RO.pdf164.01 KB

Topics

More like this