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. BG 610299 RO

                                              :  DISTRICT RENT OFFICE 
               BN Realty Assoc.,                 DOCKET NO. TC 082520 G
                                                
                                                 TENANT: L. Rosenberg        
                       
                                PETITIONER    : 
          ------------------------------------X                             

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


          On July 15, 1987, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a Petition 
          for Administrative Review against an order issued on June 12, 1987, 
          by the Rent Administrator, 10 Columbus Circle, New York, New York, 
          concerning the housing accommodations known as 3611 Henry Hudson 
          Parkway, Bronx, New York, Apartment No. 8L, wherein the Rent 
          Administrator determined that the owner had overcharged the tenant.

          The Commissioner notes that this proceeding was initiated prior to 
          April 1, 1984.  Sections 2526.1(a)(4) and 2521.d of the Rent 
          Stabilization Code (effective May 1, 1987) governing rent 
          overcharge and fair market rent proceeidngs provide that 
          determination of these matters be based upon the law or code 
          provisions in effect on March 31, 1984.  Therefore, unless 
          otherwise indicated, reference to Sections of the Rent 
          Stabilization Code(Code) contained herein are to the Code in effect 
          on April 30, 1987.

          The Administrative Appeal is being determined pursuant to the 
          provisions of Section 20 C(1) of the Rent Stabilization Code.

          The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator's order was 
          warranted.

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

          The tenant originally commenced this proceeding by filing a 
          complaint of rent overcharge.  The owner was served with a copy of 
          the complaint and was directed to submit a complete rental history.  
          The owner was advised that if it claimed a rent increase for the 
          installation of new equipment, it was required to submit invoice(s) 
          showing the cost and date of installation.  The owner did not 
          submit any proof of the cost of new equipment.

          In the order under appeal herein, the Rent Administrator 
          established the legal regulated rent; did not grant a rent increase 







          for any new equipment; and determined a rent overcharge.

          In its petition, the owner claims in substance that the Rent 
          Administrator should have granted a rent increase of 1/40th of 
          $818.80 and 1/40th of $446.00 for new equipment effective February 
          1, 1978 and July 1, 1979 respectively.


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

          Section 20 C(1) of the Rent Stabilization Code permits a rent 
          increase equal to one-fortieth the cost of new equipment.  The 
          Commissioner finds that the owner is not entitled to a rent 
          increase for the alleged new equipment because it did not submit 
          the required proof of this installation.

          Further, the owner failed to provide documentation of the cost of 
          the new equipment or the consent of the tenants in occupancy in 
          February 1978 to the increase with its petition.

          Because this determination concerns lawful rents only through      
           June 30, 1987, the owner is cautioned to adjust subsequent rents 
          to an amount no greater than that determined by the Rent 
          Administrator's order plus any lawful increases, and to register 
          any adjusted rents with this order and opinion being given as the 
          explanation for the adjustment.

          This order may, upon the expiration of the period in which the 
          owner may institute a proceeding pursuant to Article 78 of the 
          Civil Practice Law and Rules, be filed and enforced in the same 
          manner as a judgment or not in excess of twenty percent per month 
          thereof may be offset against any rent thereafter due the owner.

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

          ORDERED, that this petition for administrative review be, and the 
          same hereby is, denied, and, that the order of the Rent 
          Administrator be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.

          ISSUED:



                                                                        
                                          JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                          Acting Deputy Commissioner