Landlord Not Notified of Inspection Results

LVT Number: 12770

(Decision submitted by James R. Marino of the Manhattan law firm of Kucker Kraus & Bruh, LLP, attorneys for the landlord.) Tenants complained of a reduction in building-wide services. The DRA ruled for tenants and reduced their rents. Landlord appealed, claiming it should have been given the chance to correct conditions after the inspection since less than 50 percent of the items complained of actually existed. The DHCR ruled against landlord, finding that a rent reduction was permitted after a single inspection. Landlord appealed again and won.

(Decision submitted by James R. Marino of the Manhattan law firm of Kucker Kraus & Bruh, LLP, attorneys for the landlord.) Tenants complained of a reduction in building-wide services. The DRA ruled for tenants and reduced their rents. Landlord appealed, claiming it should have been given the chance to correct conditions after the inspection since less than 50 percent of the items complained of actually existed. The DHCR ruled against landlord, finding that a rent reduction was permitted after a single inspection. Landlord appealed again and won. The DHCR's refusal to apply its so-called 50 percent rule, which was applied as agency policy until March 1994, was arbitrary and unreasonable. The DHCR should have applied this policy, which was in effect at the time of the inspection, since less than 50 percent of the conditions complained of actually existed and landlord would have been given an additional chance to correct the conditions.

1701 Albemarle Owners' Corp. v. DHCR: Index No. 24951/97 (Sup. Ct. Kings; Jackson, J) [5-page document]

Downloads

24951-97.pdf239.78 KB