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 
     IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE :  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
     APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NOS.:
                                         :  GF 210408-RT; GF 210491-RT;
                                            GF 210489-RT; GF 210488-RT;
          VARIOUS TENANTS                   GF 210486-RT; GF 210483-RT;
                           PETITIONER    :  GF 210485-RT; GF 210393-RT;
     ------------------------------------X  GF 210422-RT; GF 210430-RT;
                                            GF 210447-RT; GF 210448-RT;
                                            GF 210452-RT; GF 210453-RT;
                                            GF 210455-RT; GF 210392-RT;
                                            GF 210476-RT; GF 210473-RT;
                                            GF 210472-RT; GF 210471-RT;
                                            GF 210470-RT; GF 210469-RT;
                                            GF 210467-RT; GF 210466-RT;
                                            GF 210465-RT; GF 210464-RT;
                                            GF 210468-RT; GF 210444-RT;
                                            GF 210441-RT; GF 210440-RT;
                                            GF 210438-RT; GF 210435-RT;
                                            GF 210423-RT; GF 210402-RT;
                                            GF 210401-RT; GF 210480-RT;
                                            GF 210482-RT; GF 210479-RT;
                                            GF 210478-RT; GF 210477-RT;
                                            GF 210457-RT; GF 210456-RT;
                                            GF 210391-RT; GF 210451-RT;
                                            GF 210442-RT; GF 210439-RT;
                                            GF 210437-RT; GF 210436-RT;
                                            GF 210434-RT; GF 210433-RT;
                                            GF 210432-RT; GF 210431-RT;
                                            GF 210429-RT; GF 210427-RT;
                                            GF 210407-RT; GF 210406-RT;
                                            GF 210405-RT; GF 210404-RT;
                                            GF 210403-RT; GF 210475-RT;
                                            GF 210454-RT; GF 210481-RT;
                                            GF 210487-RT; GF 210484-RT;
                                            GF 210450-RT
                                          
                                            RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                            DOCKET NO.: CJ 230116-OM

          ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

     The above-named petitioners-tenants timely filed petitions for 
     Administrative Review against an order issued on May 26, 1991 by the Rent 
     Administrator (Gertz Plaza) concerning the housing accommodations known as 
     95 Linden Blvd, Brooklyn, New York, Various Apartments, wherein the 
     Administrator granted major capital improvement (MCI) rent increases for the 
     stabilized apartments in the subject premises based on the rewiring of the 
     premises, including the installation of air conditioner outlets in each 
     apartment.








          DOCKET NUMBER: GF 210408-RT et.al
     The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and has 
     carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the issue raised 
     by the administrative appeals.

     Sixty-six tenants filed the within administrative appeals against the 
     Administrator's order.  These appeals are consolidated herein for a uniform 
     determination in this proceeding as all contains common issues of law and 
     fact.

     The owner commenced the proceeding below on October 1, 1988, by filing an 
     application to increase the rentals for stabilized apartments based on the 
     rewiring of the subject premises at a total claimed cost of $113,800.00.  In 
     the application the owner indicated that the building contains 119 
     apartments and the superintendent's apartment.

     In response to the owner's application, twenty-four tenants contended, in 
     substance, that the work performed was inadequate since heavy duty outlet 
     was not installed in their apartments; that the lights went off when they 
     used certain electrical equipment; that the double duplex outlet is not 
     accessible and as a result they have to use extension cords in order to plug 
     in electrical equipment ;that the circuit breaker boxes protrude from the 
     wall; that many apartments and public areas have water leaks; that the 
     apartments and the building's public areas are not kept clean; that elevator 
     service is often disrupted due to poor maintenance; that the mailboxes are 
     broken; that the public walls are defaced with graffiti; and that the 
     intercom system does not work.

     The owner responded by submitting a letter stating, in substance, that it 
     will install "wood" moldings in all apartments where the circuit breaker is 
     not "flush" with the wall.

     The Rent Administrator's order appealed herein, stated that the tenants had 
     complained about faulty rewiring; that the owner was notified to make the 
     necessary repairs and that the tenants failed to respond to a subsequent 
     inquiry from this Division requesting them to notify the agency if the 
     repairs were made.

     The Administrator's order granted the requested rent increase based on the 
     full, stated cost of the rewiring.

     On appeal, the petitioner-tenants (66) contend, in substance, that: 1) the 
     work herein involved only the installation of circuit breaker boxes in the 
     apartments; 2) the wall plugs, light receptacles and wiring were never 
     installed; 3) some of the outlets in the apartment do not work; 4) the owner 
     did not make the necessary repairs it promised during the proceeding below; 
     5) the Division should have conducted an inspection of the premises to 
     verify same; also, the tenant of apartment #47-B states, in substance, that 
     she took occupancy after the rewiring work; and that she should not be 
     charged any retroactive increase.

     The Commissioner is of the opinion that this matter should be remanded to 
     the Administrator for further appropriate processing.


          DOCKET NUMBER: GF 210408-RT et.al
     At the outset, the Commissioner notes that for an electrical upgrading to 
     qualify as an MCI under current procedures, the job requires the 
     installation of new risers and feeders extending from the property box in 
     the basement to every housing accommodations of sufficient capacity to 
     accommodate the installation of air conditioner circuits as well as the 
     installation of a double duplex outlet in the kitchen to accommodate heavy 
     duty appliances.  The record herein discloses that the owner submitted to 
     the Administrator in support of its application copies of the contract, 
     cancelled checks, contractor's certification, and the Certificate of 
     Electrical Inspection from the Bureau of Electrical Control for the work in 
     question.

     The Commissioner notes, however, that the numerous allegations of the 
     tenants concerning the protrusion of the circuit breaker boxes from the wall 
     and faulty receptacles were not properly addressed by the Administrator.  
     Accordingly, the Commissioner deems it appropriate to remand this proceeding 
     to the Administrator for further processing.  The Administrator, on notice 
     to all parties, should reexamine the owner's application and take such 
     action as may be deemed necessary, including a physical inspection of the 
     premises, to resolve the tenants' allegations regarding the quality of the 
     work performed.

     Regarding the tenant of apartment 47-B who claimed to have taken occupancy 
     of the subject apartment after the rewiring work, the Commissioner notes 
     that this tenant is not liable for any retroactive increase authorized by 
     the herein order.

     THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is

     ORDERED, that these petitions be and the same hereby are granted to the 
     extent of remanding these proceedings to the Rent Administrator for further 
     processing in accordance with this order and opinion.  The automatic stay of 
     so much of the Rent Administrator's order as directed a retroactive rent 
     increase is hereby continued until a new order is issued upon remand.  
     However, the Administrator's determination as to a prospective rent increase 
     is not stayed and shall remain in effect until the Administrator issues a 
     new order upon remand.

     ISSUED:





                                                                   
                                          JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                      Acting Deputy Commissioner




                                                    
        





    

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