Tenant's Photos Not Relevant

LVT Number: 8706

(Decision submitted by Patrick K. Munson of the Manhattan law firm of Kucker Kraus & Bruh, attorneys for the landlord.) Tenants complained of a reduction in building-wide services. They claimed a number of conditions existed. After an inspection, the DRA ruled against tenants. Tenants appealed, and submitted a number of photographs they said were taken at the time they filed their complaint. The DHCR ruled against tenants. The photographs didn't reflect repairs made by landlord after tenants' complaint was filed and before the inspection.

(Decision submitted by Patrick K. Munson of the Manhattan law firm of Kucker Kraus & Bruh, attorneys for the landlord.) Tenants complained of a reduction in building-wide services. They claimed a number of conditions existed. After an inspection, the DRA ruled against tenants. Tenants appealed, and submitted a number of photographs they said were taken at the time they filed their complaint. The DHCR ruled against tenants. The photographs didn't reflect repairs made by landlord after tenants' complaint was filed and before the inspection. Since all necessary repairs were made before the DRA's order was issued, rent cuts weren't warranted.

25 Monroe Place Tenants Assoc.: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. CA 230191-RT (3/894) [4-page document]

Downloads

CA230191-RT.pdf191.17 KB