Tenant Claims A/Cs No Longer Work

LVT Number: #25671

Rent-stabilized tenant complained of a reduction in services. He claimed that landlord reduced the electrical amperage to his apartment from 30 amps to 15 amps. The DRA ruled for tenant and reduced his rent. Landlord appealed and lost. Landlord claimed that tenant deliberately overloaded the circuits and pointed out that the DHCR's inspector stated that he was "unable to ascertain the amperage of the circuit breaker inside the apartment." But tenant claimed that he could no longer run the two air conditioners in his apartment because if he did the circuit would trip.

Rent-stabilized tenant complained of a reduction in services. He claimed that landlord reduced the electrical amperage to his apartment from 30 amps to 15 amps. The DRA ruled for tenant and reduced his rent. Landlord appealed and lost. Landlord claimed that tenant deliberately overloaded the circuits and pointed out that the DHCR's inspector stated that he was "unable to ascertain the amperage of the circuit breaker inside the apartment." But tenant claimed that he could no longer run the two air conditioners in his apartment because if he did the circuit would trip. Tenant paid a rent surcharge for the use of the two air conditioners. The DHCR's inspector could see in the basement that tenant's apartment had only a 15 amp fuse and other apartments had circuit breakers with a 30 amp fuse. But the DHCR noted that in 1961 the Temporary State Housing Rent Commissioner had issued an order authorizing an increase in the apartment's legal rent for the installation and maintenance of two air conditioners. So use of the A/C units was a base date service included in the rent-stabilized rent for the apartment. The DHCR revoked the DRA's decision and sent the case back for further consideration of tenant's loss of the air conditioning units.

354 East 66th Street Realty Corp.: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. AV410036RO (6/13/14) [3-pg. doc.]

Downloads

AV410036RO.pdf1.19 MB