OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          -------------------------------------X   ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEALS OF                               GI410079RT,   GI410113RT,
                    VARIOUS TENANTS OF             GI410123RT
                    228 EAST 26TH STREET
                    NEW YORK, NY                   RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                   DOCKET NO.:  FC430063OM



          The above named petitioner-tenants timely filed petitions for 
          administrative review (PARs) against an order issued on August 20, 
          1992, by a Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza) concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as 228 East 26th Street, New York, New York, 
          various apartments, wherein the Rent Administrator determined that 
          the owner was entitled to a rent increase based on the installation 
          of a major capital improvement (MCI).

          The Commissioner deems it appropriate to consolidate these 
          petitions for disposition since they pertain to the same order and 
          involve common issues of law and fact.

          The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and 
          has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the 
          issues in these administrative appeals.

          The owner commenced this proceeding on March 15, 1991, by initially 
          filing an application for a rent increase based on the installation 
          of electrical wiring at a total cost of $29,700.00.

          One of the petitioning tenants objected to the owner's MCI 
          application, alleging, in substance, that the rewiring was required 
          due to electrical defects and should not be considered as an MCI 
          for that reason; that the apartment has two (2) rooms, not three 
          (3) for which the tenant has been billed; and that if the owner 
          considers the kitchen to be a room, this is incorrect because her 
          kitchen, with a window, only measures 51 square feet.

          The owner did not respond to the tenant's objections below.


On August 20, 1992, the Rent Administrator issued the order here 
under review finding that the installation qualified as an MCI, 
determining that the application complied with the relevant laws 
and regulations based upon the supporting documentation submitted 

          by the owner, and allowing rent increases for rent stabilized 

          In these petitions, the tenants contend, in substance, that the 
          electrical work was done to correct problems noted as violations 
          and fire hazards by the New York City Department of Building's 
          Electrical Control Bureau (ECB); that for the above reason, the 
          rewiring should not be considered as an MCI; that the room count 
          should be two (2), not three (3) because the tenant's kitchen, 
          containing a window, only measures 33 square feet (2D); that other 
          tenants having the same apartment layout are only being charged for 
          two (2) rooms (2D); and that an inspection is warranted. 

          In response to the tenants' allegations, the owner contends, in 
          substance, that the violations mentioned by the tenants are 
          irrelevant to the MCI herein; and that the MCI has been validated 
          by the DHCR and warrants payment of the increase herein.

          After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that these petitions should be 
          Rent increases for major capital improvements are authorized by 
          Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code for rent stabilized 
          apartments.  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.  It is long-standing Division policy 
          that the adequate rewiring of a building qualifies as an MCI.

          The evidence of record in the instant case indicates that although 
          electrical violations were cited by the ECB, the inspection held on 
          August 29, 1990, revealed that said violations were primarily 
          relative to the basement of the building.  Subsequent thereto, the 
          ECB issued a certificate of electrical inspection dated December 
          20, 1990, indicating that the installation conformed with the 
          requirements of said bureau.  Furthermore, there are no apartment 
          services complaints filed by the tenants against the premises 
          relating to "blow outs" or otherwise which might indicate that the 
          tenants were experiencing an unreasonable inconvenience prior to 
          the commencement of the proceeding below.  Thus, rewiring areas 
          other than those found to be in violation of ECB standards not only 
          satisfied the requirements of the ECB but also served as a benefit 
          to all tenants by enhancing the quality of the structure.  Even 
          though a review of the New York City Department of Housing 
          Preservation and Development's (HPDs) violations log revealed that 
          there were violations against the premises prior to the 
          commencement of the proceeding herein, said violations did not 
          disclose the existence of immediately hazardous conditions and did 
          not involve electrical problems.  Hence, the Rent Administrator 
          acted properly in granting the rent increase based upon the 
          evidence of record.


          With respect to the tenant's allegation regarding room count, it is 
          noted that the owner has certified, via annual registration since 
          1984 to present and on its application, that the building contains 
          one (1) and three (3) room units only.  There are no apartments in 
          the building registered as having two (2) rooms.  Thus, the owner 
          should not be charging any tenants rent increases using room 
          quantities which are not in accordance with said certifications.  
          It shall be presumed that other tenants in the building are being 
          charged according to the information submitted in the application 
          as no other complaints concerning room count have been submitted to 
          this agency.  In pertinent part, Policy Statement 93-2, which 
          supersedes Policy Statement 90-3, states that an enclosed kitchen 
          with a window or a windowless kitchen containing at least 59 square 
          feet constitutes a room for MCI purposes.  Since it is  conceded 
          that the kitchen in the subject apartment contains a window, the 
          size of the kitchen is irrelevant. 

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, 
          it is

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


                                                         Joseph A. D'Agosta
                                                        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