Five Month Delay Between Landlord Application and Inspection Not Unreasonable

LVT Number: 16142

Tenant complained of a reduction in services. The DRA ruled for tenant and reduced her rent. Landlord later applied for rent restoration based on restoration of services. The DRA ruled against landlord after an inspection showed that landlord hadn't completed work on the kitchen cabinets, hallway ceiling, or apartment doorbell. Landlord appealed, claiming that the inspection took place too long after the repairs were made. Landlord said the conditions had simply recurred. The DHCR ruled against landlord.

Tenant complained of a reduction in services. The DRA ruled for tenant and reduced her rent. Landlord later applied for rent restoration based on restoration of services. The DRA ruled against landlord after an inspection showed that landlord hadn't completed work on the kitchen cabinets, hallway ceiling, or apartment doorbell. Landlord appealed, claiming that the inspection took place too long after the repairs were made. Landlord said the conditions had simply recurred. The DHCR ruled against landlord. Five months' delay between the date landlord filed its application and the inspection wasn't unreasonable. And an inspection showed that the services for which the rent was reduced hadn't been restored.

Parkoff Mgmt.: DHCR Admin. Rev. Dckt. No. QC410046RO (9/18/02) [2-pg. doc.]

Downloads

QC410046RO.pdf236.01 KB