Tenant Complained About Inspection

LVT Number: 6732

(Decision submitted by James R. Marino of the Manhattan law firm of Kucker Kraus & Bruh, attorneys for the landlord.) Tenant complained of a reduction in services. The DRA reduced tenant's rent based on several findings: the apartment entrance door was drafty, painting was done in an unworkmanlike manner, and bedroom blinds and bathroom sink were cracked. Landlord made repairs and applied for a rent restoration. The DRA later restored tenant's rent after sending an inspector to tenant's apartment. Tenant appealed, claiming that the inspector didn't conduct a valid inspection.

(Decision submitted by James R. Marino of the Manhattan law firm of Kucker Kraus & Bruh, attorneys for the landlord.) Tenant complained of a reduction in services. The DRA reduced tenant's rent based on several findings: the apartment entrance door was drafty, painting was done in an unworkmanlike manner, and bedroom blinds and bathroom sink were cracked. Landlord made repairs and applied for a rent restoration. The DRA later restored tenant's rent after sending an inspector to tenant's apartment. Tenant appealed, claiming that the inspector didn't conduct a valid inspection. The DHCR denied tenant's PAR. The original inspection couldn't be investigated because that inspector no longer worked for the DHCR. But other inspection reports made at the same time regarding other complaints stated that all repairs that were the subject of this complaint had been made

[Bass: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. FG 110287-RT (1/7/93)]. 3-page document.

Downloads

FG110287-RT.pdf131.15 KB