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
      APPEALS OF                             DOCKET NOS.: CI 420020-RT
                                          :               CI 420026-RT
         VARIOUS TENANTS OF 151 EAST                      CI 410027-RT
         80TH STREET , NEW YORK, NEW YORK,                CI 410162-RT
                            PETITIONERS   :               CI 420021-RT
      ------------------------------------X                             
                                             RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                             DOCKET NO.: AF 430125-OM

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

      The above-named petitioners timely filed or refiled Petitions for 
      Administrative Review against an order issued on August 1, 1988 by the Rent 
      Administrator (Gertz Plaza), concerning housing accommodations known as 151 
      East 80th Street, New York, New York, various apartments, wherein the 
      Administrator granted the owner's application for major a capital 
      improvement (MCI) rent increase.

      The Commissioner deems it appropriate to consolidate the administrative 
      appeals for determination under this order and opinion as they involve 
      common issues of law and fact.

      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 appeals.

      The owner commenced this proceeding on June 24, 1986 by filing a major 
      capital improvement rent increase application seeking to increase the rents 
      of controlled and stabilized apartments based upon the installation of new 
      replacement windows at a total claimed cost of $78,920.00.

      In response to the owner's application, various tenants submitted answers 
      stating that they were never consulted prior to the installation of the 
      windows; that the permanent nature of the rent increase sought permits 
      unjust enrichment of the owner at the expense of the tenants; that the rent 
      increase will result in undue hardship to tenants; and that the new windows 
      benefit the owner due to the savings on heating fuel.

      In addition two of the tenants (Apt. Nos. 4A and 9A) contended, in 
      substance, that the windows in their respective apartments are broken.  
      Also one tenant (apt. 1D) alleged, in substance, that one windows in her 
      apartment was not replaced.

      The Rent Administrator's order, appealed herein, granted the owner's 
      application, stating that three tenants of Apartment Numbers 4A, 9A, and 1D 
      complained about various problems with the windows in their respective 
      apartments; and that the problems were rectified to their satisfaction.








          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: CI 420020-RT, et al.




      In their petitions, the tenants (Apt. Nos. 2C, 2A, 3C, 6A, and 9A) contend, 
      in substance, that the Administrator failed to properly address their 
      complaints with respect to the windows; that the new windows were installed 
      as a result of delayed maintenance and repairs of the old ones; that the 
      new windows were built with inferior materials; and that the owner did not 
      replace all the windows in the subject premises.

      In response to the tenants' petitions the owner stated, in substance, that 
      only one tenant had complained that one window was not replaced in her 
      apartment and that this problem was rectified during the course of the 
      proceeding below.

      After careful consideration of the entire record the Commissioner is of the 
      opinion that these petitions should be denied.

      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.  Under rent control, an increase is warranted where there has 
      been since July 1, 1970 a major capital improvement required for the 
      operation, preservation, or maintenance of the structure.  Under rent 
      stabilization the improvement must generally be building-wide; depreciable 
      under the  Internal Revenue Code, other than for ordinary repairs ; 
      required  for the operation, preservation, and maintenance of the 
      structure; and replace an item whose useful life has expired.  Piecemeal 
      work or ordinary repairs and maintenance does not constitute work for which 
      a rent increase adjustment is warranted under current and past procedures.

      It is the established position of the Division that the installation of new 
      thermal replacement windows constitutes a major capital improvement for 
      which a rent increase adjustment may be warranted.  The record in the 
      instant case indicates that the owner correctly complied with the 
      application procedures for a major capital improvement and the Rent 
      Administrator properly computed the appropriate rent increases.  The fact 
      that such an improvement was performed to replace a deteriorating item of 
      the premises does not constitute a basis for barring the owner's 
      entitlement to a major capital improvement rent increase to which it is 
      otherwise entitled.  The tenants have not established that the 
      Administrator's order should be revoked or modified in any way.

      Regarding the tenants' allegations of inadequate and faulty windows, the 
      Commissioner  notes that only three tenants (apartment nos. 4A, 9A and 1D) 
      raised issues of this nature which were resolved during the course of the 
      proceeding below.  Thus, these allegations may not be considered at the 
      administrative review level pursuant to the provisions of 9 NYCRR 2529.6.  
      However, this order is issued without prejudice to the tenants' right to 
      seek a rent reduction by filing a complaint based upon a diminution in 
      services, if the facts so warrant.

      The Commissioner acknowledges that the administrator's order failed to 
      address the affordability issue during the proceeding below.  However, the 
      Commissioner is constrained by the applicable statutory and regulatory 


          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: CI 420020-RT, et al.




      provisions to grant such increases as are warranted, provided that they do 
      not exceed the statutory 6% limitation on collectibility.  The tenants with 
      valid senior citizen rent increase exemption orders are exempt from so much 
      of the increase as would cause their rent to exceed one-third of their 
      monthly disposable income.

      Based on the entire evidence of record the Commissioner finds that the 
      Administrator's order is correct and should be affirmed.

      THEREFORE, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Rent 
      Stabilization Law and Code, and the Rent and Eviction Regulations for New 
      York City, it is    

      ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are, denied; and that 
      the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is affirmed.

      ISSUED:





                                                                    
                                           JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                       Acting Deputy Commissioner