DOCKET NO.:  CG 830199-RO
                             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 APPEAL
     APPEAL OF                                 DOCKET NO. CG 830199-RO
                                           :   DRO DOCKET NOS. PBC-8-1-0001/OM
         PLEASANTVILLE HILL ASSOCIATES,                        PBF-8-1-0003/OM
                                           :   
                            PETITIONER         
     --------------------------------------X   

          
           ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

     On July 18, 1988, the above-named petitioner Pleasantville Hill Associates 
     filed a Petition for Administrative Review (PAR) against an order issued 
     on June 15, 1988, by the Rent Administrator at Gertz Plaza, Jamaica, New 
     York, concerning housing accommodations known as building-wide at 580-590- 
     600 Bedford Road, Pleasantville, NY  10570 wherein the Rent Administrator 
     consolidated two applications for major capital improvements and partially 
     granted and partially denied both of them as follows:

     The Administrator found that the replacement windows, fascia replacement, 
     heating system, and new entrance doors to the apartments and public 
     entrances constituted a major capital improvement of $68,201.24.

     The Rent Administrator further found that the following installations did 
     not constitute a major capital improvement:  garage door replacement (not 
     applicable to all tenants), supplies and tools, landscaping, turn around, 
     entrance way repair and sidewalks; which she determined to be deferred 
     repairs and maintenance.  In total of $148,088.18 was disallowed.

     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 administrative appeal.

     The owner commenced this proceeding by filing two application for major 
     capital improvements in 1987 for work completed in 1985-86 described as 
     follows:

                    Docket #PBC-8-1-0001/OM for replacement 
                    windows/new fascia $140,720.47 
                    Docket #PBF-8-1-0003/OM for heating system; 
                    front doors; entrance ways; garage doors; 
                    turnaround totaling $200,329.37


     It should be noted that the subject complex is currently a condominium.  
     The condominium plan was declared effective on March 6, 1987 by acceptance 
     of the filing of the First Amendment to the Greenwood Condominium offering 
     plan by the State Attorney General.

     At the time that the subject PAR was filed on July 1988 the owner 







          DOCKET NO.:  CG 830199-RO

     contended that 580 Bedford Road has 12 of 48 units still covered by ETPA.

     590 Bedford Avenue had 20 of 24 units still covered by ETPA and 600 
     Bedford Avenue had 11 of 45 units still covered by ETPA.

     Further the 117 unit building complex has 53 individual garages with only 
     seven of the ETPA tenants not having garage spaces at the time the PAR was 
     filed.

     Many of the ETPA tenants answered the owner's two consolidated 
     applications for major capital improvements.  Their arguments were similar 
     in nature.

     The ETPA regulated answering tenants contended:  1) that the new boiler 
     supplied insufficient heat and hot water; 2) that the new fire proof doors 
     are hollow, while the originals were solid wood; 3) further that the owner 
     removed the service of screen doors for apartments due to fire code 
     provisions; 4) that the turnaround is inconvenient to most tenants for 
     parking and is instead used by area resident making turns; 5) that the 
     replacement of concrete entranceways and sidewalks were normal 
     maintenance; and 6) that the new garage doors are not used by all the ETPA 
     tenants, since some don't have garage spaces.

     On June 15, 1988 the Rent Administrator issued the order here under 
     review, finding that some of the installations qualified as major capital 
     improvements and allowed appropriate rent increases for ETPA tenants for 
     new windows and/or other allowed improvements.  The Rent Administrator 
     also in the consolidated order disallowed the garage door replacements as 
     not affecting all ETPA tenants; and disallowed the concrete entranceway, 
     landscaping and turnaround work as mere maintenance and repair.

     The owner in the subject PAR contends that the denial of garage door 
     improvements was arbitrary since he alleges only seven ETPA apartments:  
     (#580/1, 580/3, 580/5, 590/23, 600/13, 620/14, and 600/15) do not have 
     garages.

     The owner contends that the improvements assigned docket #PBF-8-1-0003/OM 
     are in fact major capital improvements and substantial rehabilitation 
     rather than ordinary repairs and maintenance as alleged by the 
     Commissioner.  The owner therefore claims he is entitled to the full 
     $200,329.37 major capital improvement increase requested under the two 
     consolidated docket numbers broken down as follows:  heating system - 
     $43,062.68; front doors $29,312.59, entranceways $65,277.54; garage doors 
     $22,265.18 and turnaround $40,411.38.

     The owner in his PAR therefore requested that the subject District Rent 
     Administrator's order be modified in grant increases in the legal 
     regulated rent by $15.60 per month per room, and not in the reduced amount 
     of $5.31 per room per month as issued.

     Several affected tenants answered the owner's PAR.  Their contentions in 
     summary as to the relevant services covered by the owner's PAR are:



               1.   New garage doors only affected tenant with 
                    garage spaces.



          DOCKET NO.:  CG 830199-RO

               2.   Not all entranceways in 3 buildings were 
                    replaced.  Handrails were removed and only 
                    a few replaced.


     After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the opinion that the 
     owner's petition should be denied.

     The garage door replacement was merely deferred maintenance and repair.  
     The new garage doors and frames were wooden as were the original ones.  
     Further the new garage doors do not benefit all of the ETPA tenants, as 
     not all of the lease garage spaces.

     Further the supplies and tools, landscaping, turnaround, entrance way 
     repair and sidewalks are also deferred repairs and maintenance.  Further 
     they do not constitute a major capital improvement required for the 
     operation, preservation of maintenance of the structure as required by 
     Sec. 2502.4 of the Tenant Protection Regulations.

     Since the tenant's did not file their own PAR against the items that were 
     approved for a rent increase in the rent administrator's order, that 
     approval can not be reviewed.  However the tenants are advised that they 
     can file service reduction complaints regarding their PAR answer claims of 
     inadequate heat; removal of apartment screen doors and problems with 
     intercom system.

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

     ORDERED, that this petition be denied, and order of the Rent Administrator 
     is affirmed.

     ISSUED:



                                                                               
                                                     JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                 Acting Deputy Commissioner