Peeling Paint Conditions in Staircase Landings Weren't Minor

LVT Number: #30286

Rent-stabilized tenants complained of a reduction in building-wide services based on various conditions. The DRA ruled for tenants and reduced their rents. Landlord appealed and lost. Landlord claimed that many of the conditions complained of were de minimis, or minor, in nature and didn't warrant a rent reduction. The DHCR disagreed. The DRA found that lower wall paint was blistered at staircase landing B between floors 5 and 6, and that the walls at staircase A landing between floors 1 and 2 had areas of peeling paint and graffiti.

Rent-stabilized tenants complained of a reduction in building-wide services based on various conditions. The DRA ruled for tenants and reduced their rents. Landlord appealed and lost. Landlord claimed that many of the conditions complained of were de minimis, or minor, in nature and didn't warrant a rent reduction. The DHCR disagreed. The DRA found that lower wall paint was blistered at staircase landing B between floors 5 and 6, and that the walls at staircase A landing between floors 1 and 2 had areas of peeling paint and graffiti. These weren't minor conditions. The DRA also was entitled to send an inspector to the building despite landlord's submission of an architect's third-party certification of corrected conditions. 

Samson Management LLC: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. GQ930010RO (6/3/19) [4-pg. doc.]

Downloads

GQ930010RO.pdf448.45 KB