We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies in accordance with our Cookie Policy.
Landlord’s Negligence: Landlord Had No Notice Before Pipe Burst
Tenant sued landlord and its managing agent in small claims court for water damage to her property caused by a broken pipe in her apartment building. The court dismissed the case against the managing agent, finding that only landlord could be liable. Tenant claimed at trial that landlord was negligent since it didn’t contact her in a timely manner after discovering the leak. The court ruled against tenant, who appealed and lost.
Eviction: Tenant Didn’t Comply with Requirements for New Keycard
Tenant sued landlord for illegal lockout. She claimed that landlord didn’t give her keycards to the new locks that had been installed on the entry doors solely because she had refused to provide landlord with a photograph of herself. Landlord presented a 2012 DHCR order that permitted landlord to issue the electronic keycards and stated that if tenants were locked out, the lobby front door attendant must contact security, and after security verified the identity of the person, entry would be permitted.
Here are some DHCR rulings from the past year that illustrate some of the points made about the high-income/high-rent deregulation process in this special issue.
Discrimination: Tenant Claims Therapy Dog Needed as Treatment for Disability
Landlord sued to evict tenant who kept a dog in violation of his lease and didn't remove the dog after landlord sent tenant a notice to cure. Tenant then complained to the State Division of Human Rights (DHR), claiming discrimination. Tenant argued that the pet was a therapy dog needed to relieve tenant's depression. The DHR later sued landlord to recover damages based on unlawful discrimination.
Rent Stabilization: Building Substantially Rehabbed Was Exempt from Stabilization
Landlord sued to evict an unregulated tenant. Tenant claimed that he was subject to rent stabilization. The trial court ruled for landlord. Tenant appealed and lost. Landlord showed that prior landlord substantially rehabilitated the building after Jan. 1, 1974, spending over $319,000 to convert the class "B" SRO building into a class "A" multiple dwelling.
Alterations to Apartments: Tenant Renovated Bathroom Without Landlord’s Permission
Landlord sued to evict rent-stabilized tenant for creating a nuisance and for violating his lease by performing unauthorized alterations. Landlord claimed that tenant demolished the apartment’s bathroom and removed walls, the toilet, the medicine cabinet, and sink fixtures. Tenant claimed that landlord didn’t respond to his request for repairs in 2008, so he did the repairs himself with the help of landlord’s handyman in 2013.
Primary Residence: Tenant Must Submit to Independent Medical Exam
Landlord sued to evict rent-stabilized tenant based on nonprimary residence. Landlord claimed that tenant lived in New Jersey and sublet the apartment without landlord’s permission. Tenant claimed that he was away from the apartment temporarily for medical reasons and that landlord was retaliating against him based on tenant’s rent overcharge complaint. Landlord asked the court for permission to conduct an independent medical exam of tenant. The court ruled for landlord.
Landlord asked the DHCR for permission to terminate one rent-stabilized and four rent-controlled tenancies in order to demolish the building tenants lived in. Landlord claimed that the apartments were uninhabitable, that a new building it planned to construct on the site would contain 20 percent more units, that landlord couldn’t presently earn 8.5 percent annual net return on the building’s assessed value, and that landlord hadn’t mismanaged the building. Tenants denied landlord’s claims.
Demolition: Building Code Changes Required Changes to Demolition Plan
Landlord asked the DHCR for permission to refuse renewal of rent-stabilized tenants’ leases based on its intent to demolish the building. The DRA ruled against landlord, finding that it didn’t have the required architectural plans or proof of financial ability to complete the project, and that landlord didn’t proceed in a timely manner.
RSS