No Finding of Roach/Rodent Infestation

LVT Number: 8278

Tenants complained of a reduction in building-wide services. Among other things, they claimed they weren't getting extermination services. Several tenants repeated this to the DRA's inspector when he was at the building. The DRA found that landlord didn't provide extermination services, and reduced tenants' rents. Landlord appealed, claiming that it provided extermination services. The DHCR ruled for landlord. The inspector didn't actually find proof of roach or rodent infestation. Absent such a finding, it was improper for the DRA to reduce the rent.

Tenants complained of a reduction in building-wide services. Among other things, they claimed they weren't getting extermination services. Several tenants repeated this to the DRA's inspector when he was at the building. The DRA found that landlord didn't provide extermination services, and reduced tenants' rents. Landlord appealed, claiming that it provided extermination services. The DHCR ruled for landlord. The inspector didn't actually find proof of roach or rodent infestation. Absent such a finding, it was improper for the DRA to reduce the rent.

Sutton: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. BJ 630403-RO (9/17/93) [3-page document]

Downloads

BJ630403-RO.pdf153.72 KB