BJ 130150 RO
STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO. BJ 130150 RO
DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO. AC 130030 OM
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR REVIEW
On October 8, 1987 the above-named owner filed a petition for
administrative review of an order issued on September 8, 1987 by
a District Rent Administrator concerning various accommodations
in the premises known as 1854 Putnam Avenue, Ridgewood, New York,
wherein the Administrator determined that the owner was not
entitled to a rent increase.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record
and has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant
to the issues raised by the petition for review.
The owner commenced this petition on April 19, 1986 by filing an
application for a rent increase based on the asserted major
capital improvements of: new electrical service equipment,
hallway decorating, and a new hallway runner, at a total cost of
The owner certified that on April 19, 1986 she served each
tenant with a copy of the application and placed a copy of the
entire application including all required supplements and
supporting documentation with the resident owner.
Tenants affected by the owner's rent increase application were
afforded an opportunity to interpose answers. One of the five
tenants in the subject building filed an answer.
In the order here under review, the Administrator determined that
none of the work constituted an MCI.
In the petition for administrative review, the owner requests
revocation of the Administrator's order. She alleges that the
wiring was needed to upgrade the system to support the tenant's
new air-conditioning. She further alleges that the hallway
redecoration was necessary because the hallway had never been
painted before, and that the hallway runner was necessary for
BJ 130150 RO
safety on the steps. Finally, the owner points out the tenants
are consenting to a rent increase based on her application.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that the petition should be denied.
First, the owner's claim that redecorating the hallway and the
installation of a new hallway runner at a cost of $4,344.56
constituted a MCI is without merit.
Section 2520.6(r)(1) of the Rent Stabilization Code and Section
2200.3(b) of the Rent and Eviction Regulations define required or
essential services. These definitions include repairs,
decorating and maintenance. Clearly, the owner's work on the
hallway in this case falls within the definitions of a required
or essential service and as such cannot be considered to be an
Second, the Commissioner finds that the installation of
electrical equipment, namely new meters and panels at a cost of
$2,600.00, did not constitute an MCI. In general the agency
requires an owner to show that risers and feeders have been
extended to every apartment in the subject building and that this
wiring may support an installation of air conditioners in every
living room and bedroom. None of the documentation submitted by
the owner is sufficient to sustain such a finding. Accordingly,
the Administrator correctly determined that the installation of
new meters and panels did not qualify as an MCI.
Finally, the owner states that the tenants have consented to a
rent increase based on the MCI application. Section 2520.13 of
the Rent Stabilization Code and Section 2200.15 of the Rent and
Eviction Regulations prohibit a tenant from waiving the benefit
of a provision of the law or code. As such, the consent of the
tenants to an unwarranted MCI rental increase is invalid.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, the
Rent and Rehabiliation Law and the Rent and Eviction Regulations,
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied,
and that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,