Tenant Denied Access

LVT Number: 11757

(Decision submitted by Robert H. Berman of the Manhattan law firm of Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler & Schwartz, P.C., attorneys for the landlord.) complained of a reduction in services. The DRA ruled for tenant and reduced her rent. Landlord applied for a rent restoration. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenant appealed, claiming that landlord still hadn't painted her bedroom and that the walls still had water stains on them. The DHCR ruled against tenant. Landlord had claimed that tenant wouldn't allow access for repairs. The DHCR scheduled a ``no-access'' inspection for a specific date.

(Decision submitted by Robert H. Berman of the Manhattan law firm of Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler & Schwartz, P.C., attorneys for the landlord.) complained of a reduction in services. The DRA ruled for tenant and reduced her rent. Landlord applied for a rent restoration. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenant appealed, claiming that landlord still hadn't painted her bedroom and that the walls still had water stains on them. The DHCR ruled against tenant. Landlord had claimed that tenant wouldn't allow access for repairs. The DHCR scheduled a ``no-access'' inspection for a specific date. Tenant was advised to allow access, and landlord was told to come ready to paint and plaster. Tenant's neighbor let landlord into tenant's apartment on the scheduled access date but wouldn't allow workers to perform any painting or repairs. So landlord was entitled to a rent restoration even though conditions still existed.

Goldstein: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. JK420081RT (4/16/97) [2-page document]

Downloads

JK420081RT.pdf113.38 KB