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.: BC 810296-RO
                                         :  
                                            DISTRICT RENT ORDER 
       Y & R REALTY CORP.                   DOCKET NO.: NRLI 84/1016-39
       OWNER               PETITIONER    :              AC84/1032-45
     ------------------------------------X                             

           ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

     On March 20,  1987,  the  above-named  petitioner  filed  a  Petition  for
     Administrative Review against an order issued on  February  13,  1987,  99
     Church Street, White Plains, New York concerning the housing accommodation 
     known as 111 Franklin Avenue, New Rochelle,  New  York  wherein  the  Rent
     Administrator denied a rent increase for the installation of a new roof.

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

     The owner commenced this proceeding by filing an application for  a  major
     capital improvement increase based upon the installation of  a  new  roof.
     In an order issued on September 25, 1985, the  Rent  Administrator  denied
     the application on the grounds that the useful economic life  of  a  prior
     roof installation had not been reached at the time the new roof was placed 
     on the building.  The owner filed an appeal  alleging  that  tenant-caused
     damage to the previous roof had necessitated the  installation  of  a  new
     roof only eight and one half years after the earlier installation.  In  an
     order issued on October 28, 1986, the proceeding was remanded to the  Rent
     Administrator for a hearing and such further processing as was required.

     After a hearing to ascertain the responsibility for the condition  of  the
     prior roof the  Administrator  found  that  the  owner  had  not  properly
     maintained the roof and was not entitled to a building-wide rent  increase
     for the roof installation.  The Administrator  affirmed  the  prior  order
     which had denied the owner's application.

     The main basis of the owner's appeal is that the Administrator's  decision
     is not equitable.  The owner contends that the tenants  will  have  a  new
     roof for many years without paying of it.  Had only another year a d  one-
     half elapsed, the installation would have been eligible for the  increase.
     The owner suggests crediting the tenants for the increase on the  previous
     installation and allowing the difference  as  a  rent  increase  for  this
     installation.

     In addition, the owner contends that the evidence  was  overwhelming  that
     roof leaks had developed due to the abuse of  the  roof  by  a  number  of
     tenants.  Nevertheless, the owner questions the evidence adduced at the 







          DOCKET NUMBER: BC 810296-RO
     hearing at which the building superintendent testified and named only  one
     tenant who had used the roof.  The owner asserts that  the  superintendent
     was surprised by the question and reluctant to name names at that time but 
     now is able to provide eight or nine names of present  or  former  tenants
     who had used the roof.

     In reply the tenant contend inter alia, that they should not have  to  pay
     for a new roof when the previous roof was only eight and  one  half  years
     old.   Moreover,  the  tenants  challenge  the  owner's  ability  to  name
     additional tenants who had used the roof.

     The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be denied.

     The owner was well aware that the purpose of the hearing was to  ascertain
     whether the roof damage was caused by tenants or by poor workmanship or by 
     owner neglect.  The owner was afforded an opportunity to  submit  evidence
     to justify his allegation that roof  damage  was  caused  by  tenants  and
     failed to do so.  The owner cannot now excuse that failure and allege that 
     supporting evidence is available.

     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
     apartments.  The arrangement suggested  by  the  owner,  a  rent  increase
     reduced by the previous MCI increase is not authorized and does  not  meet
     the requirements of either the Code or the Regulations.  Accordingly,  the
     Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly denied the application.

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

     ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby  is,  denied  and  the
     Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.

     ISSUED:













                                                                   
                                            ELLIOT SANDER
                                         Deputy Commissioner