Tenant Didn't Prove Decrease in Apartment Space

LVT Number: 16819

Rent-stabilized tenant complained of a reduction in services based on a decrease in the size of her apartment. She claimed that the other apartments in her line had two bedrooms but that one bedroom in her apartment had been removed and added to the apartment next door. The DRA ruled against tenant because she filed her complaint 15 years after the apartment was reconfigured. Tenant appealed, claiming that she didn't discover the decrease in apartment space until just before she filed her complaint. The DHCR ruled against tenant for a different reason.

Rent-stabilized tenant complained of a reduction in services based on a decrease in the size of her apartment. She claimed that the other apartments in her line had two bedrooms but that one bedroom in her apartment had been removed and added to the apartment next door. The DRA ruled against tenant because she filed her complaint 15 years after the apartment was reconfigured. Tenant appealed, claiming that she didn't discover the decrease in apartment space until just before she filed her complaint. The DHCR ruled against tenant for a different reason. The DRA incorrectly found the condition to be minor because tenant filed her complaint so long after discovery of the condition. A decrease in tenant's living space by a full room is a major reduction in services, and evidence of this would rebut the presumption that it was a minor condition because tenant waited so long to complain. But tenant didn't prove that her apartment contained two bedrooms on the base date. So there was no decrease in services and no basis for a rent reduction.

Johnson: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. QD110066RT (7/11/03) [3-pg. doc.]

Downloads

QD110066RT.pdf174.15 KB