Elevator Upgrade in Progress

LVT Number: #19988

Tenants complained of a reduction in building-wide services because the elevator wasn't working. The DRA ruled for tenants and reduced their rents. Landlord appealed, claiming that it was in the process of upgrading elevator service by installing a new elevator. The new elevator was expected to be operational in six weeks. The DHCR ruled against landlord. On March 22, 2007, and May 16, 2007, the DHCR's inspector found that the elevator wasn't working. The DRA therefore properly found that elevator service wasn't being maintained. It didn't matter that landlord was upgrading the elevator.

Tenants complained of a reduction in building-wide services because the elevator wasn't working. The DRA ruled for tenants and reduced their rents. Landlord appealed, claiming that it was in the process of upgrading elevator service by installing a new elevator. The new elevator was expected to be operational in six weeks. The DHCR ruled against landlord. On March 22, 2007, and May 16, 2007, the DHCR's inspector found that the elevator wasn't working. The DRA therefore properly found that elevator service wasn't being maintained. It didn't matter that landlord was upgrading the elevator. It was undisputed that elevator service hadn't been provided for six months at the time the DRA's order was issued.

Manhattan North Management Co., Inc.: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. VG430018RO (9/12/07) [2-pg. doc.]

Downloads

DOC071107VG430018-RO.pdf51.49 KB