New Claims About Vermin Weren't in Initial Complaint

LVT Number: #22242

Rent-stabilized tenant complained of a reduction in services based on mouse and roach infestation in his apartment. The DRA ruled for tenant and reduced his rent. Landlord later sought rent restoration, claiming that the condition had been cured. The DRA ruled for landlord and restored tenant's rent. Tenant appealed and lost. Tenant claimed that landlord had exterminated only twice in the past eight months and that there remained problems with rats, mice, and bedbugs in the building. But tenant didn't complain about rodents in the basement or about bedbugs in his initial filing.

Rent-stabilized tenant complained of a reduction in services based on mouse and roach infestation in his apartment. The DRA ruled for tenant and reduced his rent. Landlord later sought rent restoration, claiming that the condition had been cured. The DRA ruled for landlord and restored tenant's rent. Tenant appealed and lost. Tenant claimed that landlord had exterminated only twice in the past eight months and that there remained problems with rats, mice, and bedbugs in the building. But tenant didn't complain about rodents in the basement or about bedbugs in his initial filing. And DHCR inspection of the apartment showed no evidence of mice or roaches in the glue trap under tenant's stove or elsewhere in the apartment.

Malwich: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. XC410013RT (8/21/09) [3-pg. doc.]

Downloads

XC410013RT.pdf91.53 KB