Second Entrance Door Removed

LVT Number: 13516

Tenant complained of a reduction in services based on landlord's removal of lobby space and a second building entrance door. The DRA ruled for tenant and reduced her rent based on the reduction in lobby space. Tenant appealed, arguing that the DRA should also have ordered landlord to restore the second door. The DHCR ruled against tenant. An inspection showed that the remaining building entrance door was secured, self-closing and self-locking, with a working buzzer system. Tenant didn't prove that there was any reduction in building safety because of the removal of the second door.

Tenant complained of a reduction in services based on landlord's removal of lobby space and a second building entrance door. The DRA ruled for tenant and reduced her rent based on the reduction in lobby space. Tenant appealed, arguing that the DRA should also have ordered landlord to restore the second door. The DHCR ruled against tenant. An inspection showed that the remaining building entrance door was secured, self-closing and self-locking, with a working buzzer system. Tenant didn't prove that there was any reduction in building safety because of the removal of the second door. Since the remaining door secured the building and was in proper working order, there was no reduction in services.

Mintzner: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. NB430026RT (6/30/99) [2-pg. doc.]

Downloads

NB430026RT.pdf101.92 KB