Rents Reduced for Graffiti and Other Conditions

LVT Number: #20838

Tenants complained of a reduction in building-wide services based on a number of conditions. The DRA ruled for tenants and reduced their rents. Landlord appealed, arguing that the conditions tenants complained about didn't amount to reduced services. Landlord also claimed that, except for graffiti that it was in the process of clearing, the conditions had been corrected. The DHCR ruled against landlord. DHCR inspections were conducted in January and again in March 2008 after landlord failed to respond to a request for information from the DRA.

Tenants complained of a reduction in building-wide services based on a number of conditions. The DRA ruled for tenants and reduced their rents. Landlord appealed, arguing that the conditions tenants complained about didn't amount to reduced services. Landlord also claimed that, except for graffiti that it was in the process of clearing, the conditions had been corrected. The DHCR ruled against landlord. DHCR inspections were conducted in January and again in March 2008 after landlord failed to respond to a request for information from the DRA. The second inspection showed that the building entrance ceiling was stained and bubbled, the lobby steps were cracked, the sixth-floor ceiling and upper walls were stained and bubbled, there was inadequate janitorial service throughout the building, and there was graffiti outside the building. All of these conditions showed that landlord wasn't maintaining the building. The DRA properly ordered rent reductions.

PR 247 Wadsworth LLC: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. WF410038RO (8/22/08) [2-pg. doc.]

Downloads

WF410038RO_0.pdf186.7 KB