Tenants Didn't Answer Landlord's Application

LVT Number: 14607

(Decision submitted by James R. Marino of the Manhattan law firm of Kucker & Bruh, LLP, attorneys for the landlord.) Tenants complained of a reduction in services. The DRA ruled for tenants and reduced their rents. Landlord later applied to restore the rents based on restoration of services. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed, claiming that landlord hadn't restored elevator service. The DHCR ruled against tenants. Tenants never answered landlord's rent restoration application, although the DRA gave them notice and an opportunity to respond.

(Decision submitted by James R. Marino of the Manhattan law firm of Kucker & Bruh, LLP, attorneys for the landlord.) Tenants complained of a reduction in services. The DRA ruled for tenants and reduced their rents. Landlord later applied to restore the rents based on restoration of services. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed, claiming that landlord hadn't restored elevator service. The DHCR ruled against tenants. Tenants never answered landlord's rent restoration application, although the DRA gave them notice and an opportunity to respond. So the DRA properly restored the rents.

Handy/Ribaudo: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. Nos. OG430052RT and OG430034RT (11/8/00) [2-pg. doc.]

Downloads

OG430052RT.pdf122.42 KB