Rooftop Master TV Antenna

Tenant complained of a reduction in services. He claimed that landlord had discontinued a rooftop master TV antenna that was wired directly to tenant's apartment. This forced tenant to get cable TV to receive clear transmission of broadcast channels. The DRA ruled for tenant after holding a hearing. Landlord appealed, claiming that the hookup in tenant's apartment was for a telephone, not for a TV antenna. Landlord argued that: 1) the DRA should have inspected the wall hookup device in tenant's apartment; 2) the DRA incorrectly found that landlord hadn't adequately opposed sworn statements from other building residents; 3) the DRA incorrectly found that landlord had relied on information from the co-op board president, instead of from building management; 4) the DRA incorrectly relied on a building management memo submitted by tenant that was of questionable authenticity and was possibly written by someone with no personal knowledge; 5) the DRA should have relied on an architectural report submitted by landlord; 6) the DRA improperly relied on tenant claims about telephone company statements; 7) the building wouldn't have had master TV antenna wiring when built, and landlord never got an MCI increase for installing any; 8) landlord was harmed by tenant's nine-year delay in making a complaint after the supposed discontinuance of service; and 9) tenant's delay in making the complaint showed that the condition was minor. The DHCR ruled against landlord, although it noted that landlord's third argument had merit. Tenant presented more proof that there had been a master TV antenna than landlord presented that there hadn't. The DHCR pointed out that landlord hadn't raised its minor argument or any argument about tenant's delay until it filed its PAR. So these arguments couldn't be raised now.

London Terrace Assocs.: DHCR Admin. Rev. Dckt. No. QD420061RO (9/18/02) [7-pg. doc.]