Tenants Want Roof Door Locks

LVT Number: 9698

(Decision submitted by Benjamin Binder of the Manhattan law firm of Shaw & Binder, attorneys for the landlord.) Tenant complained of reduced services because there were no locks on the roof doors of the building. The DRA ruled for tenant and reduced his rent. Landlord appealed, pointing out that there was no legal requirement to provide roof door locks and that the law prohibited landlord from installing the self-locking roof doors tenant asked for.

(Decision submitted by Benjamin Binder of the Manhattan law firm of Shaw & Binder, attorneys for the landlord.) Tenant complained of reduced services because there were no locks on the roof doors of the building. The DRA ruled for tenant and reduced his rent. Landlord appealed, pointing out that there was no legal requirement to provide roof door locks and that the law prohibited landlord from installing the self-locking roof doors tenant asked for. Landlord also pointed out that the DRA ruled in another complaint from tenants in the same building that the roof door condition didn't warrant a rent reduction. The DHCR ruled for landlord and revoked the rent reduction.

Sherwood Village Owners Corp.: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. IK130144RO (2/24/95) [2-page document]

Downloads

IK130144RO.pdf71.19 KB