STATE OF NEW YORK
                      DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          -------------------------------------X   ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE      DOCKET Nos.:  BK210197RT
          APPEALS OF                                             BL210023RT
                    
                    JAMES STACK AND
                    THOMAS TEDESCHI
                    
                                                   RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                   DOCKET NO.:  AD230021OM

                                   PETITIONERS
          -------------------------------------X

          ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          The above named petitioner-tenants filed petitions for 
          administrative review of an order issued on October 30,1987, by a 
          Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza) concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as various apartments, 302 Marine Avenue, 
          Brooklyn, New York.  

          Since these petitions involve common issues of law and fact , they 
          have been consolidated for a uniform disposition. 

          The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record and 
          has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the 
          issues raised by the petitions for review.

          The owner of the subject premises commenced this proceeding by 
          filing a major capital improvement rent increase application with 
          the Administrator based on the installation of adequate wiring and 
          related work and sealing of the dumbwaiter shafts for the total 
          claimed cost of $125,094.51.

          In response to the owner's MCI application the tenant of apartment 
          C-9 asserted, in pertinent part, that in his apartment four new 
          Duplex outlets had been installed using Bx cable and that the old 
          wiring was not replaced.  The tenant of apartment A-2 asserted, in 
          substance, that in 1969, with the  then owner's permission and at 
          their own expense, they had commissioned the installation of 
          "electrical rewiring" in their kitchen.  Several other tenants 
          responded to the various installations and their comments were duly 
          noted by the Administrator. 














          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NOS. BK-210197-RT; BL-210023-RT

          On October 30, 1987 the Rent Administrator issued the order here 
          under review, finding that the adequate rewiring of the subject 
          premises and related lighting, in the total amount of $120,994.51, 
          qualified as MCIs' and granting rent increases for the controlled 
          and stabilized apartments.  Denied were those costs associated with 
          the sealing of the dumb waiter shafts in the total claimed amount 
          of $4,100.00.

          In his petition, the tenant of apartment B-1 (formerly resident of 
          C-9) asserts, in substance, that the only electrical work completed 
          in his apartment was the installation of an electric panel box 
          consisting of four circuit brakers and no outlets.  In his petition 
          the tenant of apartment A-2 asserts, in substance, that in 1970 he 
          had installed, at his own expense and with the then owner's written 
          permission, a 220 volt electrical line and that the instant MCI 
          application is an unnecessary duplication of that work.  Enclosed 
          with this petition is a copy of a note, dated December 1969 and 
          signed by a former owner, indicating that the named tenant herein 
          was authorized to install a 220 volt electrical line at his own 
          expense; and a copy of a receipt from an electrical contractor 
          detailing the work completed to wit:  replaced fuse panel with 
          circuit brakers, picked up existing circuit on new panel, installed 
          circuits in kitchen (three) and bedroom (one), installed double 
          switch for kitchen lighting, hooked up two fixtures in the kitchen 
          and one convenience outlet for the clock in the kitchen.

          After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that these petitions should be 
          denied.
           
          Rent increases for major capital improvements are authorized by 
          Section 2202.4 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations for rent 
          controlled apartments and Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization 
          Code for rent stabilized apartments.  Under rent control, an 
          increase is warranted where there has been since July 1, 1970, a 
          major capital improvement required for the operation, preservation, 
          or maintenance of the structure.  Under rent stabilization, the 
          improvement must generally be building-wide; depreciable under the 
          Internal Revenue Code, other than for ordinary repairs; required 
          for the operation, preservation, and maintenance of the structure; 
          and replace an item whose useful life has expired.










                                          2






          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NOS. BK-210197-RT; BL-210023-RT

          It is the established position of the Division that the adequate 
          rewiring of a building constitutes a major capital improvement for 
          which a rent increase may be warranted, provided the owner 
          otherwise so qualifies.  The Commissioner notes that adequate 
          rewiring/electrical upgrading requires the installation of new 
          electric service to the building, new copper risers and feeders 
          that extend from the property box in the basement to every housing 
          accommodation of sufficient capacity (220 volts at the apartment 
          panel box) to accommodate the installation of air-conditioner 
          circuits and outlets as well as the installation of two duplex/ 
          outlets in the kitchen to accommodate heavy duty appliances (as 
          performed in the case herein).

          In addition the tenants must be afforded the opportunity of having 
          additional air-condition outlets installed if such outlets were not 
          installed on a building-wide basis as part of the MCI installation.

          With regard to the allegation by the tenant of apartment B-1, the 
          evidence of record in the instant case discloses that as to those 
          items for which a rent increase was granted, the owner 
          substantiated its MCI application for the rewiring work in the 
          proceeding below by submitting to the Administrator copies of the 
          contract, cancelled checks, the contractor's certification, and the 
          Certificate of Electrical Inspection by the Bureau of Electrical 
          Control for the work in question.  The Commissioner finds that the 
          owner correctly complied with the application procedures for an MCI 
          and that the Administrator properly computed the appropriate rent 
          increase based on the proven cost of same.  The tenants have not 
          established that this rent increase should be revoked.

          With regard to the tenant of apartment A-2, the Commissioner notes 
          that the installation performed by the owner herein is more 
          comprehensive in nature forming an integrated building-wide 
          electrical upgrade.  In fact the tenant conceded in the proceeding 
          below that the circuit breaker panel for this apt., installed 15 
          years earlier, was in an inaccessible location in the basement of 
          the subject premises.  Based upon the entire record, The 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the Administrator's order is 
          correct and should be affirmed.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, 
          and the Rent and Eviction Regulations for New York City, it is

          ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are, denied, 
          and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, 
          affirmed.

          ISSUED:
                                                       ____________________
                                                         Joseph A. D'Agosta
                                                        Deputy Commissioner
                                          3






    

TenantNet Home | TenantNet Forum | New York Tenant Information
DHCR Information | DHCR Decisions | Housing Court Decisions | New York Rent Laws
Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Contact Us

Subscribe to our Mailing List!
Your Email      Full Name