No Notice of Inspection Sent to Landlord

LVT Number: 17372

(Decision submitted by Karen Schwartz-Sidrane of the Hewlett, N.Y., law firm of Sidrane & Schwartz-Sidrane, LLP, attorneys for the landlord.) Tenant complained of a reduction in services. The DRA ruled for tenant based on several conditions and reduced her rent. Landlord appealed, claiming that the inspector arrived late to the no-access inspection and landlord had left by the time the inspection took place.

(Decision submitted by Karen Schwartz-Sidrane of the Hewlett, N.Y., law firm of Sidrane & Schwartz-Sidrane, LLP, attorneys for the landlord.) Tenant complained of a reduction in services. The DRA ruled for tenant based on several conditions and reduced her rent. Landlord appealed, claiming that the inspector arrived late to the no-access inspection and landlord had left by the time the inspection took place. Landlord called the inspector following the inspection and the inspector told landlord that only the floor covering in the living room and the tiles in the second bedroom needed repair. The inspector didn't tell landlord that the floor tiles in the bathroom or the floor in the first bedroom were in need of repair. Landlord then corrected only those items that the inspector told him about, and landlord wasn't given notice of the follow-up inspection or the results of that inspection. The DHCR ruled for landlord. The DRA should have given landlord notice of the follow-up inspection. Since the DRA had already determined that the service in question was restored, there was no need to send the case back for a further inspection after giving landlord notice.

Chestnut Holdings: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. Nos. RI610078RO & RI610022RT (5/7/04) [4-pg. doc.]

Downloads

RI610078RO.pdf188.14 KB