Inspection Showed Vermin-Free Apartment

LVT Number: 18047

(Decision submitted by James R. Marino of the Manhattan law firm of Kucker & Bruh, LLP, attorneys for the landlord.) Tenant complained of a reduction in building-wide services. She claimed that the building was infested with vermin. The DRA ruled against tenant based on an inspection. Tenant appealed, claiming that even though there were no mice when the inspector visited, they were there. The DHCR ruled against tenant. There were no mice or mouse droppings in tenant's apartment, in the recycling area, the areas under the stairs, or near the mailboxes.

(Decision submitted by James R. Marino of the Manhattan law firm of Kucker & Bruh, LLP, attorneys for the landlord.) Tenant complained of a reduction in building-wide services. She claimed that the building was infested with vermin. The DRA ruled against tenant based on an inspection. Tenant appealed, claiming that even though there were no mice when the inspector visited, they were there. The DHCR ruled against tenant. There were no mice or mouse droppings in tenant's apartment, in the recycling area, the areas under the stairs, or near the mailboxes. Tenant had no other proof to support her claim, so the DRA properly relied on the inspector's report.

Finazzo: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. SK410048RT (3/30/05) [2-pg. doc.]

Downloads

SK410048RT.pdf76.73 KB