Landlord Proved Doormen Worked at Least 80 Hours per Week

LVT Number: 14455

(Decision submitted by James R. Marino of the Manhattan law firm of Kucker & Bruh, LLP, attorneys for the landlord.) Tenants complained of a reduction in services. The DRA ruled for tenants and reduced their rents. Landlord later applied for rent restoration based on restoration of services. Tenants objected. The DRA ruled for landlord based on tenants' failure to show that doorman service wasn't restored to 80 hours per week. Tenants appealed, claiming that the doormen still worked only 70 hours per week and noted several occasions where the doorman didn't show up until noon.

(Decision submitted by James R. Marino of the Manhattan law firm of Kucker & Bruh, LLP, attorneys for the landlord.) Tenants complained of a reduction in services. The DRA ruled for tenants and reduced their rents. Landlord later applied for rent restoration based on restoration of services. Tenants objected. The DRA ruled for landlord based on tenants' failure to show that doorman service wasn't restored to 80 hours per week. Tenants appealed, claiming that the doormen still worked only 70 hours per week and noted several occasions where the doorman didn't show up until noon. The DHCR ruled against tenants. Landlord submitted sworn statements from the doormen that their work shift started at 10:30 a.m. Landlord also submitted payroll records showing that they paid for doorman service on average over 90 hours per week.

Berg: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. OE230004RT (9/14/00) [3-pg. doc.]

Downloads

OE230004RT.pdf149.72 KB