Floor-Leveling Defect Not Minor Condition

LVT Number: #23724

Tenant complained of a reduction in services based on the condition of the floors in her apartment. The DRA ruled for tenant and reduced her rent. Landlord appealed and lost. Landlord disputed the DRA's finding that the floor leveling apartment wide wasn't being maintained, and argued that the condition found in the bedroom and living-room floors wasde minimis--that is, minor. But the DHCR's inspector found that the hall floor boards, near the entry, an area of 7 x 3 square feet, were raised, uneven, separating, and a trip hazard.

Tenant complained of a reduction in services based on the condition of the floors in her apartment. The DRA ruled for tenant and reduced her rent. Landlord appealed and lost. Landlord disputed the DRA's finding that the floor leveling apartment wide wasn't being maintained, and argued that the condition found in the bedroom and living-room floors wasde minimis--that is, minor. But the DHCR's inspector found that the hall floor boards, near the entry, an area of 7 x 3 square feet, were raised, uneven, separating, and a trip hazard. The kitchen floorboards, to the right of the entry, an area of 5 x 2 square feet, were raised, uneven, and a trip hazard. The bathroom floor tiles, covering an area of 3 x 2 square feet, were cracked and sunken. The bedroom floor boards, covering an area of 2 x 6 square feet, were sagging and sunken. The living-room floor boards, covering an area of 1 x 5 feet, were raised and uneven. These were not minor conditions. Photographs also showed significant gaps between the boards in the living room and bedroom.

106 Pinehurst Ave., LLC: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. ZA410040RO (9/14/11) [3-pg. doc.]

Downloads

ZA410040RO.pdf96.88 KB