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   ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE      DOCKET NO.:  DK110261RT
          APPEAL OF
                    BRUCE GLASSMAN
                                                   RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                   DOCKET NO.:  BF130068OM
                                   PETITIONER
          -------------------------------------X

          ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On November 29, 1989, the above named petitioner-tenant timely 
          filed a petition for administrative review (PAR) against an order 
          issued on November 1,1989, by the Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza) 
          concerning the housing accommodations known as 41-15 50th Street, 
          Woodside, Queens, New York, Apt. 4B, wherein the Rent Administrator 
          determined that the owner was entitled to a rent increase based on 
          the installation of a major capital improvement (MCI).

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

          The owner commenced this proceeding on June 8, 1987 by initially 
          filing an application for a rent increase based on the installation 
          of widows, building-wide, at a total cost of $51,460.00.

          Various tenants responded to the owner's MCI application, objecting 
          to the increase.

          On November 1, 1989, the Rent Administrator issued the order here 
          under review finding that the installation qualified as an MCI, 
          determining that the application complied with the relevant laws 
          and regulations based upon the supporting documentation submitted 
          by the owner, and allowing appropriate rent increases for rent 
          controlled and rent stabilized tenants.

          In this petition, the tenant of apartment 4B contends, in 
          substance, that he should not be subject to the retroactive rent 
          increase for the period prior to his occupancy on March 1, 1988.

          In response to the tenant's petition, the owner contends, in 
          substance, that the tenant in apartment 4B owes him the retroactive 
          MCI rent increase from the time the tenant occupied the apartment 
          to the end of the retroactive period, December 1, 1989, plus the 
          MCI increase for the month of December 1989.












          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. DK-110261-RT

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

          The tenant does not question the propriety of the Administrator's 
          order, which properly found that the building-wide installation of 
          new windows qualified for an MCI rent increase.

          However, where as in the instant case, the tenant took occupancy 
          pursuant to a vacancy lease commencing after the owner had filed 
          its application, the Commissioner notes that for the MCI increase 
          to be collectible during the term of the tenant's vacancy lease, 
          such vacancy lease would have to contain a specific clause advising 
          the tenant of the docket number of the pending proceeding and the 
          nature of the requested increase and advising that the rent charged 
          was subject to an additional increase (during the current lease 
          term in effect) as provided by  Section 2522.4 (a) (5) of the Rent 
          Stabilization Code and established Division precedent.  In the 
          absence of this provision said increase would not be collectible 
          until the expiration of the lease term in effect at the time of 
          issuance (November 1, 1989) of the MCI order, provided the renewal 
          lease contains a general authorization provision for adjustment of 
          the rent reserved by the DHCR order.  Such tenant would not be 
          obligated to pay arrears, which in no event would be collectible 
          for a period prior to the time the tenant took occupancy.  The 
          tenant is advised to refer to his lease which is not attached to 
          the petition and is not part of the record.  This order is being 
          issued without prejudice to the tenant's right to file a complaint  
          of rent overcharge , if the facts so warrant.

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

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and 
          the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.

          ISSUED:



                                                       ____________________
                                                         Joseph A. D'Agosta
                                                        Deputy Commissioner









                                          2