Tenant Acknowledged Restored Hot-Water Service

December 1, 2002

LVT Number: 16280

(Decision submitted by James R. Marino of the Manhattan law firm of Kucker & Bruh, LLP, attorneys for the landlord.) Tenant complained of a reduction in services based on inadequate hot-water service. The DRA ruled for tenant and reduced his rent. Landlord appealed. The DRA order was based on an HPD violation. But landlord had submitted to the DRA a copy of a court settlement agreement in which tenant acknowledged that hot-water service had been restored. The DHCR ruled for landlord. Landlord got just a one-month rent reduction for the period that there was no hot water.

(Decision submitted by James R. Marino of the Manhattan law firm of Kucker & Bruh, LLP, attorneys for the landlord.) Tenant complained of a reduction in services based on inadequate hot-water service. The DRA ruled for tenant and reduced his rent. Landlord appealed. The DRA order was based on an HPD violation. But landlord had submitted to the DRA a copy of a court settlement agreement in which tenant acknowledged that hot-water service had been restored. The DHCR ruled for landlord. Landlord got just a one-month rent reduction for the period that there was no hot water.

75 Thayer LLC: DHCR Admin. Rev. Dckt. No. QJ410006RP (11/6/02) [2-pg. doc.]

Downloads

QJ410006RP.pdf108.46 KB

Topics

More like this