Tenants complained of a reduction in building-wide services due to defective intercoms, garbage accumulation in the building’s public areas, and a few other conditions. They also claimed that the building had no super. The DRA ruled for tenants and reduced their rents. Landlord appealed and lost. Landlord argued that eight out of 11 tenants had signed letters withdrawing the complaint and therefore should not have received rent reductions. Tenants claimed that the withdrawals were invalid, had been obtained through fraudulent means, and were against public policy.
Tenants complained of a reduction in building-wide services due to defective intercoms, garbage accumulation in the building’s public areas, and a few other conditions. They also claimed that the building had no super. The DRA ruled for tenants and reduced their rents. Landlord appealed and lost. Landlord argued that eight out of 11 tenants had signed letters withdrawing the complaint and therefore should not have received rent reductions. Tenants claimed that the withdrawals were invalid, had been obtained through fraudulent means, and were against public policy. The DHCR found that an agreement by tenants to waive the benefit of any provision of the Rent Stabilization Law or Code was void. DHCR inspection confirmed the conditions found by the DRA. Landlord also claimed that the conditions found were minor, but hadn’t raised this claim before the DRA. In any event the service deficiencies found weren’t minor.
91-95 East 18 Property LLC: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. ET230007RO (2/14/17) [5-pg. doc.]
