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 NO.: BA 230073-RO
                                         :  
                                            DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
        HINDY ASSOCIATES                    DOCKET NO.: CS 000996-OM
                           PETITIONER    : 
     ------------------------------------X                             

           ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

     On  January  27,  1987,  the  above-named  owner  filed  a  petition   for
     administrative review of an  order  issued  on  December  26,  1986  by  a
     District Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodations known as 
     200 Gelston Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, Various Apartments.

     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 petition for administrative review.

     The District Rent Administrator's  order  appealed  herein  increased  the
     rents of all Rent Stabilized apartments by $4.64 per each $100.00 of  rent
     paid per month, and Rent Controlled apartments  by  $4.20  per  room,  per
     month,  based  upon  the  purchase  and  installation   of   a   new   oil
     burner/boiler, entrance  door  and  intercom  system  at  a  substantiated
     allowable cost of $16,633.34.  The effective date of the rent increase was 
     determined to be June 1, 1986 for Rent Stabilized apartments and from  the
     first rent payment day following the issuance of the order  (December  26,
     1986) for rent controlled apartments.  It was noted that the cost  of  the
     purchase and installation of a heat timer was disallowed.  It was  further
     noted that the cost for the new mailboxes  was  disallowed  as  they  were
     installed in the same location as the  prior boxes.

     On appeal, the owner  alleges,  in  substance,  that  the  costs  for  the
     purchase and installation of mailboxes and a heat  timer  were  improperly
     disallowed. The owner asserts that the mailboxes were installed in  a  new
     location in a locked area and that the heat timer is an integral  part  of
     the boiler/burner installation.  The  owner  thereby  asserts  that  these
     installations conform to agency standards  for MCI rent increases.

     After  careful  consideration  of  the  entire  evidence  of  record,  the
     Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative  appeal  should  be
     denied.

     The Commissioner notes  at  the  outset  that  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  units.   Under  rent
     control, an increase is warranted where there has been since July 1,  1970







          DOCKET NUMBER BA 230073-RO
     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.   Piecemeal  work  or  ordinary  repairs   and
     maintenance does not constitute work for which a rent increase  adjustment
     is warranted under current and past procedure.

     The  record  reveals  that  the  administrator  properly   applied   these
     principles to  the  owner's  application.   The  installations  for  which
     increases were allowed fit the  above  definition  and  their  costs  were
     substantiated by the owner.  The Administrator  properly  found  that  the
     installation of the mailboxes and  the  heat  timer  did  not  qualify  as
     major capital improvements.

     With respect to the mailboxes  it  is  the  established  position  of  the
     Division that the installation of mailboxes per se does not  constitute  a
     major capital improvement but rather their structural relocation to a more 
     secure area behind locked  doors.   The  record  discloses  that  evidence
     submitted when this proceeding  was  before  the  Administrator  does  not
     indicate the relocation of the mailboxes to  a  more  secure  area  behind
     locked doors and the owner does not submit any  new  evidence  within  his
     petition which would allow the Commissioner to reexamine this issue in the 
     context of this appeal.  

     With respect to the heat timer, the District Rent  Administrator  properly
     determined that such item does not constitute a major capital  improvement
     in accordance with agency policy and precedent.

     THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions  of  the  Rent  and  Eviction
     Regulations and the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is

     ORDERED, that this administrative appeal  be,  and  the  same  hereby  is,
     denied, and that the order of the District Rent Administrator be, and  the
     same hereby is, affirmed.

     ISSUED:







                                                                   
                                     JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                     Deputy Commissioner