Rent Administrator Incorrectly Denied Rent Restoration

LVT Number: #29689

Rent-stabilized tenants complained of a reduction in building-wide services. The DRA ruled for tenants and reduced their rents based on dirty and stained carpeting in all four passenger elevators. Landlord later applied for rent restoration based on the restoration of services. The DRA ruled against landlord, finding that although inspection showed no proof of dirty and stained carpeting, the elevator carpeting was still deteriorated and damaged. Landlord appealed and won. The rent reduction order wasn't based on deteriorated and damaged elevator carpeting.

Rent-stabilized tenants complained of a reduction in building-wide services. The DRA ruled for tenants and reduced their rents based on dirty and stained carpeting in all four passenger elevators. Landlord later applied for rent restoration based on the restoration of services. The DRA ruled against landlord, finding that although inspection showed no proof of dirty and stained carpeting, the elevator carpeting was still deteriorated and damaged. Landlord appealed and won. The rent reduction order wasn't based on deteriorated and damaged elevator carpeting. So, the DRA erred in finding that this was grounds to deny landlord's rent restoration application. Landlord restored the condition cited in the rent reduction order and was entitled to rent restoration. 

 

CF E88 LLC & SM E88 LLC: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. FR410049RO (8/14/18) [2-pg. doc.]

Downloads

FR410049RO.pdf850.98 KB