DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA

                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          ------------------------------------X   ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE     DOCKET NO.: CB630077RT;
          APPEAL OF                               CC610121RT; CC630322RT
                 
          HAROLD URETSKY AND HYMAN KNAUER,
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                               PETITIONERS        DOCKET NO.: AL630011OM 
          ------------------------------------X

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On various dates the above-named petitioner-tenants filed petitions 
          for administrative review (PARs) of an order issued on February 5, 
          1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as 2146-48 Barnes Avenue, Bronx, NY, 
          Apartments 604 and 215, wherein the Administrator granted, in part, 
          the owner's application for a rent increase which was based on the 
          installation of various major capital improvements (MCIs).

          The Commissioner deems it appropriate to consolidate these 
          petitions for disposition since they pertain to the same order and 
          involve common issues of law and fact.

          In addition, Docket No. CB630077RT and Docket No. CC630322RT are 
          essentially the same petition, as duplicate copies of the tenant's 
          petition were erroneously assigned two docket numbers.
           
          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 these administrative appeals.

          The owner commenced the instant proceeding by initially filing an 
          application for a rent increase predicated on the installation of 
          a burner/boiler, entrance doors, mailboxes and an elevator upgrade 
          at a total claimed cost of $49,716.00.

          In response to the owner's application, numerous tenants, including 
          the petitioners, raised objections to the various installations.  
          However, the only objections raised below by the petitioners 
          regarding the burner/boiler was that it had been installed in 1982 
          by a previous owner.

          In Docket No. AL630011OM, issued February 5, 1988, the Rent 
          Administrator partially approved the owner's MCI application by 
          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. CB630077RT













          authorizing a rent increase of $2.40 per room, per month, for all 
          rent controlled and rent stabilized apartments in the subject 
          building predicated on the installation of a burner/boiler, which 
          work was found to qualify as an MCI.

          In the petitions for administrative review, the petitioners 
          contend, in substance, that the burner/boiler was installed by a 
          previous owner and that the boiler/burner is defective and provides 
          inadequate heat.

          After a careful consideration of the entire record the Commissioner 
          is of the opinion that this petition should be denied.

          Rent increases for major capital improvements are authorized by 
          Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code and are warranted 
          where the improvements are building-wide, depreciable under the 
          Internal Revenue Code, other than for ordinary repair, required for 
          the operation, preservation and maintenance of the structure and to 
          replace an item whose useful life has expired.

          The record in the instant case indicates that the Administrator's 
          order was predicated upon a review of full supporting 
          documentation, including contracts, contractor's certification, 
          cancelled checks and requisite governmental approvals.

          A change in the ownership of the building does not affect the 
          validity of the order granting the rent increase.  It is the actual 
          work performed that merits the increase.  Who owned the building 
          while the work was performed is insignificant.

          The Commissioner noted that the petitioners herein raised no 
          objections as to the quality or adequacy of the installations while 
          this proceeding was before the Rent Administrator, although they 
          were afforded the opportunity to do so.

          Accordingly, pursuant to prior administrative decisions under the 
          Rent and Eviction Regulations and pursuant to Section 2529.6 of the 
          Rent Stabilization Code, the tenants' allegations may not be 
          considered now when offered for the first time on administrative 
          appeal.  The Commissioner further notes that the records of the 
          Division disclose that  no heat or hot water complaints were 
          pending nor were there any orders of rent reduction of a building- 
          wide nature in effect as of the issuance date of the 
          Administrator's order appealed herein.

          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 Code, it is
          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. CB630077RT

          ORDERED, that these petitions be and the same hereby is, denied; 
          and that the order of the Rent Administrator be, and hereby is, 






          affirmed.        



          ISSUED:




                                                                          
                                                  LULA M. ANDERSON  
                                                  Deputy Commissioner