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 710110-RT
                                         :  
      LAWRENCE LIEBERMAN AND                DRO DOCKET NO. N-C-86-S-138/188-OM
      VARIOUS NAMED TENANTS,
                           PETITIONER    : 
     ------------------------------------X                             

           ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

     On  May  28,  1987  the  above-named  tenants   filed   a   petition   for
     administrative review of an order issued on April  27,  1987,  by  a  Rent
     Administrator concerning  the  housing  accommodations  known  as  232-238
     Cedarhurst Avenue, Cedarhurst, New York, wherein  the  Rent  Administrator
     determined that the owner was entitled to a rent increase based on a major 
     capital improvement.

     The issue in this case is whether the  Administrator's  determination  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  issues
     raised by the petition for review.

     The owner commenced this proceeding by filing an application  for  a  rent
     increase based on a major capital improvement, to wit, the installation of 
     713 Ecker Thermalux Aluminum windows at a total cost of $111,878.00.

     The Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR)  served  each  tenant
     with a copy of the application and afforded the tenants the opportunity to 
     review it and comment thereupon.

     Forty-five tenants answered, alleging that the replacement windows  reduce
     light and ventilation; that they have half-screens  only,  little  thermal
     resistance, and have frame sash bumpers which are havens for  insects  and
     are difficult to open for cleaning.  Additionally, the tenants  complained
     about the painting of the inside window frames,  and  disagreed  with  the
     count of windows installed both in tenants' apartments and public hallways 
     and basement.

     The owner, in response, denied the tenants' allegations, and submitted  an
     independent thermal performance test report in support of his contentions. 
     Additionally, the owner stated that it had arranged to  paint  the  window
     areas of all apartments where paint  chipping  had  occurred  due  to  the
     window installations.

     Based on the DHCR inspector's count of the public area windows (127),  and
     the count of total individual apartment windows  submitted  by  the  owner
     (557), the Administrator found that  a  total  of  684  windows  had  been
     installed.






          DOCKET NUMBER: BE 710110-RT
     On April 27, 1987, the Rent Administrator  issued  the  order  here  under
     review, finding  that  the  installation  qualified  as  a  major  capital
     improvement, determining that the application complied with  the  relevant
     laws and regulations based upon the supporting documentation submitted  by
     the owner, and allowing the appropriate rent increase. 

     In their petition for administrative review, the  tenants  request  review
     and  modification  of  the  Rent  Administrator's  order,  alleging   that
     ventilation has been reduced; that DHCR's inspection was  inadequate;  and
     that the window  count  was  inaccurate;  and  that  the  windows  in  the
     superintendent's apartment were not replaced.

     The owner did not interpose an answer to the tenants' petition.

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

     Rent increases for major capital improvements are  authorized  by  Section
     2502.4 of the Tenant Protection Regulations, and Section 8626(d)(3) of the 
     Emergency Tenant  Protection  Act.   The  improvement  must  generally  be
     building-wide  and  required  for   the   operation,   preservation,   and
     maintenance of the structure.

     With regard to the allegations of the tenants  that  the  ventilation  has
     been reduced, the Commissioner recognizes that  the  installation  of  new
     windows may alter ventilation patterns.  However, this does not warrant  a
     denial of a rent increase, where otherwise warranted.

     Concerning the tenants' contention of  an  inaccurate  window  count,  the
     record before the Commissioner discloses that the increase granted by  the
     Administrator was on a per window cost basis.  Since the tenants are  only
     required to pay for the number of apartment windows actually installed  in
     their respective apartments, the Commissioner concludes that  the  failure
     of the Administrator to count the individual number of  apartment  windows
     did not adversely affect the tenants herein.  The Division  inspection  is
     dispositive with regard to the window count  in  the  public  areas.   The
     alleged non-replacement of windows in the superintendent's apartment  does
     not appear  to  have  been  raised  below,  and  may  not,  therefore,  be
     considered at this stage of the process.   

     THEREFORE, in accordance with the Tenant Protection  Regulations  and  the
     Emergency Tenant Protection Act, it is












          DOCKET NUMBER: BE 710110-RT
     ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied,  and  that
     the order of the Rent Administrator be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.

     ISSUED:











                                                                   
                                     ELLIOT SANDER
                                     Deputy Commissioner