Super's Address Not Posted in Lobby

April 1, 1994

LVT Number: 8709

(Decision submitted by Manhattan attorney Eileen O'Toole, who represented the landlord in this case.) Tenants complained of a reduction in services. The DRA ruled for tenants and cut their rents. Among other things, the DRA found that landlord didn't post the superintendent's address in the building lobby. Landlord applied to restore the rents based on restoration of services. The DRA initially denied landlord's application. Landlord appealed, and the DHCR ruled for landlord.

(Decision submitted by Manhattan attorney Eileen O'Toole, who represented the landlord in this case.) Tenants complained of a reduction in services. The DRA ruled for tenants and cut their rents. Among other things, the DRA found that landlord didn't post the superintendent's address in the building lobby. Landlord applied to restore the rents based on restoration of services. The DRA initially denied landlord's application. Landlord appealed, and the DHCR ruled for landlord. The DHCR stated that not posting a proper lobby notice with the super's address was a technicality and didn't justify a rent cut.

Charles Birdoff & Co.: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. HE 430128-RO (2/8/94) [3-page document]

Downloads

HE430128-RO.pdf143.52 KB

Topics

More like this