Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Citation
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Parent Document
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Jurisdiction
- DC (municipal)
- Effective Date
- 1983-05-31
Other Sections in This Document (80)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- § 788
- § 788
- § 788
- § 788
- § 788
- § 788
- § 788
- § 788
- § 788
- § 263
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
Full Text
688 charsAt the outset of the nonjury trial that followed, the court denied tenants’ oral motion for summary judgment, ruling that the requirement of filing a statement of certification of costs with the trial court was not a substantive requirement that would preclude a rent increase where the statement had not been filed. At the conclusion of the trial, the court held that tenants were entitled to a rent abatement for the months of August and September, 1980, because of the existence of housing code violations. By subsequent written order the court ruled that by reason of its duty to determine the amount of arrearages tenants would be required to pay in order to exercise their Trans-Lux