Hallway Ceiling Stains and Cracks Were Not Minor Conditions

LVT Number: #30457

Rent-stabilized tenants complained of a reduction in building-wide services based on various conditions. The DRA ruled for tenants and reduced their rents. Landlord appealed and lost. Landlord claimed that some of the cited conditions were de minimis--that is, minor--and didn't warrant a rent reduction. But landlord's claim that a stain on the fourth floor ceiling was de minimis was incorrect. The stain wasn't discrete and, hallway walls and stairs throughout both building wings didn't indicate that janitorial services were regularly provided.

Rent-stabilized tenants complained of a reduction in building-wide services based on various conditions. The DRA ruled for tenants and reduced their rents. Landlord appealed and lost. Landlord claimed that some of the cited conditions were de minimis--that is, minor--and didn't warrant a rent reduction. But landlord's claim that a stain on the fourth floor ceiling was de minimis was incorrect. The stain wasn't discrete and, hallway walls and stairs throughout both building wings didn't indicate that janitorial services were regularly provided. Cracks in the walls and ceilings also weren't de minimis since the cracks on the ceiling observed by the DHCR's inspector appeared to be more than hairline cracks. Water damage coupled with bubbling and peeling paint on the top floor ceiling also wasn't de minimis

950 to 954 Woodycrest Ave. LLC: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. GU30024RO (9/25/19) [3-pg. doc.]

Downloads

GU630024RO.pdf255.26 KB