Chipped and Peeling Fire Escape Isn't Minor Condition

LVT Number: #23375

Tenant complained of a reduction in services. The DRA ruled for tenant and reduced his rent. Landlord later sought rent restoration based on the restoration of services. The DRA ruled against landlord, who appealed and lost. Landlord claimed that the fire escape was in good, sound, and safe condition, and that the rust and chipped and peeling paint on the fire escape were a de minimis--that is, minor--condition. But a "de minimis" claim doesn't apply to a rent restoration application, only to an initial complaint of reduction in services.

Tenant complained of a reduction in services. The DRA ruled for tenant and reduced his rent. Landlord later sought rent restoration based on the restoration of services. The DRA ruled against landlord, who appealed and lost. Landlord claimed that the fire escape was in good, sound, and safe condition, and that the rust and chipped and peeling paint on the fire escape were a de minimis--that is, minor--condition. But a "de minimis" claim doesn't apply to a rent restoration application, only to an initial complaint of reduction in services. In addition, the NYC Housing Maintenance Code requires landlords to scrape and repaint a fire escape with two coats of contrasting colors whenever it becomes corroded. So this wasn't a de minimis condition.

485 East 180th Street: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. YI630019RO (3/3/11) [2-pg. doc.]

Downloads

YI630019RO.pdf58.16 KB