Second Inspection Wasn't Needed

(Decision submitted by Karen Schwartz-Sidrane of the Hewlett law firm of Pennisi Daniels & Norelli, LLP, attorneys for the landlord.) Tenant complained of a reduction in services based on vermin infestation. The DRA ruled for tenant and reduced his rent. Landlord later applied for rent restoration. The DRA ruled against landlord based on an inspection in December 1999 that showed mice droppings in tenant's apartment. Landlord appealed. After the DRA's order was issued, tenant had complained of noncompliance. In September 1999, the DHCR's inspector found no indication of roach or rodent infestation in tenant's apartment. So a second inspection wasn't needed after landlord's rent restoration application was filed. The inspector's findings in December 1999 may have showed a new condition, but the prior condition had been corrected.

601 W. 160th St. Realty: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. OB410012RO (6/22/00) [2-pg. doc.]