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
          APPEALS OF                             DOCKET NOS.:
                                              :  HG230060RT/HG230061RT/
          VARIOUS TENANTS OF 3111 GLENWOOD       HG230064RT/HG230071RT/
          ROAD, BROOKLYN, NY                     HG230072RT/HG230074RT/
                                  PETITIONERS :  HG230077RT/HG230078RT/
          ------------------------------------X  HG230098RT/HG230099RT/     
                                                 HG230100RT/HG230101RT/
                                                 HG230106RT/HG230107RT/
                                                 HG230108RT/HG230112RT/
                                                 HG230113RT/HG230114RT/
                                                 HG230116RT/HG230117RT

                                                 RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                 DOCKET NO.: GA230047OM

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On July 12, 1993, various tenants timely filed petitions for 
          administrative review against an order issued on June 10, 1993, by 
          a Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza) concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as 3111 Glenwood Road, Brooklyn, 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 a uniform disposition since they pertain to the same 
          order and involve common issues of law and fact.

          The owner commenced this proceeding on January 16, 1992, by 
          initially filing an application for a rent increase based on the 
          installation of rewiring at a cost of $63,975.00.

          Several tenants objected to the owner's application alleging, in 
          substance, that (1) there is an existing violation stating that the 
          wiring is faulty and constitutes an obvious fire hazard.  Therefore 
          the work completed represents necessary building maintenance, and 
          should not be considered a major capital improvement; (2) tenants 
          (apartment A9 and D5) stated that the owner only installed two 
          outlets to facilitate the use of household appliances.  New outlets 
          were not installed in all areas of the apartment; (3) tenants of 
          apartments E2 and E9 stated that they continue to experience 
          electrical problems in the living room and bedroom; and (4) tenants 
          of E2 and F10 stated that they took occupancy in the building on 
          January 29, 1992 and August 16, 1991 respectively.  Moreover, the 
          tenants of apartments F10 stated that the owner agreed to exempt 
          them from the rent increase during the period of this leasing 
          agreement, while the tenants of apartment E2 are of the opinion 
          that this rent increase should not affect them.







          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: HG230060RT, etal

          On June 10, 1993, 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 controlled and 
          rent stabilized tenants.

          In these petitions, the tenants contend, in substance, that the 
          installation consisted of one outlet for an air conditioner in the 
          living room and one receptacle in the kitchen.  However, certain 
          appliances if used, will result in a loss of power in the 
          electrical outlets.

          In response to the tenants' petitions, the owner contends, in 
          substance, that the Division has, in the past entitled owners to an 
          MCI rent increase whereas the work completed repaired a defective 
          building condition.  Moreover, the tenants allegations are without 
          merit as the work completed was inspected by the City of New York, 
          Department of Buildings (Bureau of Electrical Control) and a 
          Certificate of Electrical Inspection was issued.  Furthermore, 
          various tenants have raised these problems for the first time on 
          appeal.  Therefore these allegations should not be considered.

          After careful consideration of the entire record, the Commissioner 
          is of the opinion that these petitions should be denied.

          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) to accommodate the installation of air conditioner circuits 
          and outlets as well as two double outlets in the kitchen to 
          accommodate heavy duty appliances (as performed in the case 
          herein).

          Whereas an owner need not include as part of the major capital 
          improvement rewiring installation the cost of installing new air 
          conditioner circuits and outlets, such work may be included, as in 
          the instant matter, provided they are installed in a uniform number 
          in each apartment in which event tenant consent to such 
          installation is not required.  The owner is not required to install 
          an outlet in every room for the work to qualify for an MCI rent 
          increase.

          In the event of a change of tenancy during an MCI proceeding, it is 
          the obligation of the owner to notify the new tenant of the 
          pendency of such proceeding, and to advise the Division of this 
          change in tenancy.  While not fatal to the owner's application, the 
          owner runs the risk of the tenant who was not notified raising 
          issues on appeal which could have been raised in the proceeding 
          below, thus jeopardizing the finality of the Administrator's order.


          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: HG230060RT, etal

          Where, as in the instant case, the tenant of apartment E2 took 
          occupancy pursuant to a vacancy lease commencing after the owner 
          had filed its application, the Commissioner notes that for the MCI 
          increase granted by the Administrator's order to be collectible 
          during the term of the petitioner's vacancy lease, such vacancy 
          lease would have to contain a specific clause advising the tenant 
          of the docket number of the pending proceeding and advising that 
          the rent charged was subject to an additional increase (during the 
          current lease term in effect) as provided by Section 2522.4(a)(5) 
          of the Rent Stabilization Code and established Division precedent.  
          In the absence of same, said increase was not collectible until the 
          expiration of the lease term in effect at the time of issuance 
          (June 10, 1993) of the MCI order, provided the renewal lease 
          contains a general authorization provision for adjustment of the 
          rent reserved by a DHCR order.

          Finally, the Commissioner is not unmindful of the possibility that 
          the rent increase may prove burdensome to some tenants.  However, 
          the Commissioner is constrained by the applicable statutory and 
          regulator provisions to grant such increases as are warranted.

          A tenant who has a valid Senior Citizen Rent Increase Exemption 
          Order (SCRIE) is exempted from that portion of the increase which 
          would cause the rent to exceed one-third of the tenant's household 
          monthly disposable income.  A tenant who may be entitled to this 
          benefit may contact the New York City Department of the Aging by 
          calling (212) 240-7000.

          The Commissioner notes that this order is issued without prejudice 
          to the tenants' filing complaints with the Division based on a rent 
          overcharge and/or a reduction in services, if the facts so warrant.

          On the basis of the entire evidence of record, it is found that the 
          Administrator's order is correct and should be affirmed.

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

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

          ISSUED:





                                                                        
                                               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