Notice of Tenants' Complaint Not Properly Delivered to Landlord

LVT Number: 19445

(Decision submitted by James R. Marino of the Manhattan law firm of Kucker & Bruh, LLP, attorneys for the landlord.) Tenants complained of a reduction in building-wide services. They claimed that landlord had removed a surveillance camera by the mail room. The DRA ruled for tenants and reduced their rents. Landlord appealed and lost. Landlord then filed an Article 78 petition in court. Landlord argued that the DHCR's decision was unreasonable because landlord didn't get proper notice of tenants' complaint from the DHCR.

(Decision submitted by James R. Marino of the Manhattan law firm of Kucker & Bruh, LLP, attorneys for the landlord.) Tenants complained of a reduction in building-wide services. They claimed that landlord had removed a surveillance camera by the mail room. The DRA ruled for tenants and reduced their rents. Landlord appealed and lost. Landlord then filed an Article 78 petition in court. Landlord argued that the DHCR's decision was unreasonable because landlord didn't get proper notice of tenants' complaint from the DHCR. The court ruled for landlord and sent the case back to the DHCR for further consideration. By this time, landlord had advised the DHCR that it had installed a camera system in the building lobby. The DHCR ruled for landlord and revoked the DRA's rent reduction order.

Singapore Leasing, LP: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. UJ110011RP (1/31/07) [2-pg. doc.]

Downloads

UJ 110011-RP.pdf39.87 KB