Landlord Removed Terrace's Tile Floor

LVT Number: 11397

Tenant complained of a reduction in services. Among other things, she claimed that landlord had removed terrace floor tiles. The DRA ruled for tenant and reduced her rent. Landlord appealed, claiming that the terrace tiles weren't a required service. The DHCR ruled against landlord. Landlord claimed that the old tiles were cracking and causing leaks. But landlord didn't show that new or replacement tiles couldn't be provided. The terrace floor tiles existed when tenant moved in and so were a required service.

Tenant complained of a reduction in services. Among other things, she claimed that landlord had removed terrace floor tiles. The DRA ruled for tenant and reduced her rent. Landlord appealed, claiming that the terrace tiles weren't a required service. The DHCR ruled against landlord. Landlord claimed that the old tiles were cracking and causing leaks. But landlord didn't show that new or replacement tiles couldn't be provided. The terrace floor tiles existed when tenant moved in and so were a required service.

Honig/Harper Mgmt. Co.: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. Nos. IH410246RO, IH410163RT (11/25/96) [3-page document]

Downloads

IH410246RO.pdf124.02 KB