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.: BE 110275-RO
                                         :  
                                            RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S 
       PENNSYLVANIA LEASING                 DOCKET NO.: QS 000259-OM
       COMPANY             PETITIONER    : 
     ------------------------------------X                             

          ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW 
                              FOR FURTHER PROCESSING

     The above-named owner timely filed a petition for administrative review of 
     an order issued on  March  17,  1987  by  a  District  Rent  Administrator
     concerning the housing accommodations known as Various  Apartments,  31-35
     Crescent Street, Astoria, New York.

     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 review.

     The issue herein is  whether  the  District  Rent  Administrator  properly
     determined the owner's application  for  a  rent  increase  based  upon  a
     claimed major capital improvement (MCI).

     The District Rent Administrator's order, appealed  herein,  increased  the
     rents of all rent-stabilized apartments by .39 cents per  month  for  each
     $100.00 of rent paid as of October 1, 1984, based upon  the  purchase  and
     installation of a new gas/oil burner at a  substantiated,  allowable  cost
     of $9,600.00.  The effective date of the rent increase was  determined  to
     be February 1, 1985.  It was noted in the  order  that  $7,624.76  of  the
     claimed costs for the installation were disallowed because  signatures  of
     the vendors had not  been  provided  where  required  on  the  RA-79  Form
     (owner's application for rent increase based on  the  installation  of  an
     MCI).  

     In this petition the owner, by its agent, alleges, in substance,  that  it
     properly complied  with  the  rent  agency's  requirements  to  completely
     substantiate the costs incurred for the purchase and installation  of  the
     gas/oil burner.  Regarding the lack of the contractor/vendor signatures on 
     the RA-79 application form, the owner asserts that it complied  with  rent
     agency   instructions   by   providing    affidavits    identifying    the
     contractor/vendor, the service they provided and at what  cost.   Finally,
     the owner notes that it was able to install the gas/oil burner at half the 
     'going' price  which  fact  should  be  accounted  for  in  assessing  the
     allowable MCI costs.  The owner encloses  a  copy  of  the  directions  it
     received from the rent agency regarding  the  above  mentioned  affidavits
     being acceptable in lieu of contractor/vendor signatures.








          DOCKET NUMBER: BE 110275-RO
     After  careful  consideration  of  the  entire  evidence  of  record,  the
     Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative  appeal  should  be
     granted and this proceeding remanded to the Rent Administrator for further 
     processing.

     The Commissioner notes that the rent agency provides an instruction  sheet
     along with the  RA-79  application  form  (owner's  application  for  rent
     increase   based    on    major    capital    improvements).     Regarding
     contractor/vendor signatures the  instructions  indicate  that  where  the
     contractor/vendor refuses or is unable  to  sign  the  certification,  the
     owner may instead submit an affidavit which must  include  the  following:
     identity of contractor/vendor, work done or materials supplied, cost,  and
     reason why  the  contractor/vendor's  signature  was  not  obtained.   The
     affidavit must be signed, notarized and attached to the  RA-79  Supplement
     form.

     The record in  the  instant  case  includes  invoices,  cancelled  checks,
     management approvals, sign-offs for the installation and operation of  the
     new gas/oil burner  and  copies  of  the  owner's  affidavits  identifying
     several contractor/vendors, the work done or materials supplied and costs, 
     along with an explanation as to why their signatures  were  not  included.
     These affidavits, as required,  are  dated,  signed  and  notarized.   The
     Commissioner is therefore of the opinion that  it  was  improper  for  the
     Rent Administrator to disallow expenditures totalling $7,624.76 solely  on
     the basis that  the  contractor/vendors'  signatures  were  not  obtained.
     Accordingly, this proceeding is remanded to  the  Rent  Administrator  for
     such further processing as may be  deemed  necessary,  on  notice  to  the
     parties.

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

     ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby  is,  granted  to  the
     extent of remanding this proceeding to the Rent Administrator for  further
     processing in accordance with this order and opinion.  The Administrator's 
     determination as to the rent increase remains in  full  force  and  effect
     until a new order is issued upon remand.

     ISSUED:



                                                                   
                                          JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                       Acting Deputy Commissioner