Defective Bulkhead Not Mentioned in Rent Cut Order

LVT Number: 9400

(Decision submitted by James R. Marino of the Manhattan law firm of Kucker Kraus & Bruh, attorneys for the landlord). The DRA cut tenant's rent, based on roof defects. Landlord applied to restore the rent after repairing the defects. Based on an inspection, the DRA ruled that landlord had corrected the roof defects and restored the rent. Tenant appealed, arguing that the bulkhead needed repair and that water seepage was starting to show on the exterior bulkhead walls. The DHCR ruled for landlord.

(Decision submitted by James R. Marino of the Manhattan law firm of Kucker Kraus & Bruh, attorneys for the landlord). The DRA cut tenant's rent, based on roof defects. Landlord applied to restore the rent after repairing the defects. Based on an inspection, the DRA ruled that landlord had corrected the roof defects and restored the rent. Tenant appealed, arguing that the bulkhead needed repair and that water seepage was starting to show on the exterior bulkhead walls. The DHCR ruled for landlord. The bulkhead defects weren't cited in the rent reduction order, so they can't be considered in the rent restoration case.

Kane: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. EH 110433-RT (11/16/94) [2-page document]

Downloads

EH110433-RT.pdf68.31 KB