Inspector Found No Air Seepage

December 1, 2001

LVT Number: 15476

(Decision submitted by James R. Marino of the Manhattan law firm of Kucker & Bruh, LLP, attorneys for the landlord.) Landlord applied for rent restoration based on restoration of services for which a rent reduction was previously granted. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed, claiming that their windows were still drafty. The DHCR ruled against tenants. There was no air seepage from the windows when a DHCR inspector visited tenant's apartment. It didn't matter that the inspection didn't take place during winter months.

(Decision submitted by James R. Marino of the Manhattan law firm of Kucker & Bruh, LLP, attorneys for the landlord.) Landlord applied for rent restoration based on restoration of services for which a rent reduction was previously granted. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed, claiming that their windows were still drafty. The DHCR ruled against tenants. There was no air seepage from the windows when a DHCR inspector visited tenant's apartment. It didn't matter that the inspection didn't take place during winter months.

Lulow: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. PG410042RT (11/7/01) [2-pg. doc.]

Topics

More like this