Second Inspection Not Required

(Decision submitted by Manhattan attorney Eileen O'Toole, who represented the landlord.) Tenants complained of a reduction in building-wide services based on various conditions, including garbage accumulation in front of the building. The DRA ruled for tenants in 1990 and reduced their rents. Landlord applied for rent restoration later that year, claiming that it kept the front of the building clear of garbage. Based on an inspection in 1993, almost three years later, the DRA denied landlord's rent restoration application. Landlord appealed, arguing that the inspection was made so long after the rent restoration application was filed that it couldn't determine the services restored in 1990. The DHCR ruled for landlord. The DRA's records showed that two inspections were conducted in connection with the rent restoration application. An April 1992 inspection showed no accumulation of garbage on the sidewalk. At a second inspection, conducted in March 1993, some garbage was found. There was no reason stated for the second inspection. The results of the first inspection should have been used to restore rents.

Charles Birdoff & Co.: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. Nos. IH 430019-RP, IH 430026-RP (7/27/95) [7-page document]