DOB Elevator Inspection Done After DHCR Inspection

LVT Number: 19364

Tenants complained of a reduction in building-wide services. They claimed that the building's east-wing elevator was defective. The DRA ruled against tenants based on a DHCR inspection. Tenants appealed, claiming that they should get a rent reduction for the period between June 2005 and January 2006, when the elevator didn't work properly. With their PAR, tenants submitted a copy of DOB violations issued after the DRA's order. The DHCR ruled against tenants. Tenants filed their complaint with DOB in February 2006. This was after the DRA had issued its order.

Tenants complained of a reduction in building-wide services. They claimed that the building's east-wing elevator was defective. The DRA ruled against tenants based on a DHCR inspection. Tenants appealed, claiming that they should get a rent reduction for the period between June 2005 and January 2006, when the elevator didn't work properly. With their PAR, tenants submitted a copy of DOB violations issued after the DRA's order. The DHCR ruled against tenants. Tenants filed their complaint with DOB in February 2006. This was after the DRA had issued its order. The DOB's later findings of elevator violations weren't enough to change the DRA's decision.

Various Tenants of 690 Fort Washington Ave.: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. UB430024RT (11/3/06) [2-pg. doc.]

Downloads

UB430024RT.pdf173.66 KB