DK 110269-RT, DL 110237-RT
                                  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.: 
                                                 DK 110269-RT, DL 110237-RT
                                                
             MELO/HURTADO,                       DRO DOCKET NO.: BG 130049-OM    

                                                 Premises: 39-25 65th Street
                                                  Forest Hills, New York
                            PETITIONER  
          -----------------------------------X                           
            
            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          The above-named tenants timely filed Petitions for  Administrative
          Review of an order issued concerning  the  housing  accommodations
          relating to the above described docket number.        

          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 petitions.

          The owner commenced the proceeding below by filing an  application
          for a rent increase based on a major capital improvement,  o  wit-
          windows.
           
          Each tenant was served with a copy of the owner's application  and
          was afforded an opportunity to review it  and  comment  thereupon.
                                                                            
          The petitioner-tenants did not file an objection  to  the  owner's
          application although afforded the opportunity to do so.

          Thereafter, 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  documenta
          tion submitted by the owner,  and  allowing  appropriate  rent  in
          creases.

          In their petitions for administrative review, the tenants requests 
          reversal of the Rent Administrator's order and asserts,  that  the
          tenants should not bear  the  burden  of  the  owner's  investment
          prospectively, that the window installation  is  defective  and  a
          cold breeze enters the apartment.

          The owner interposed an answer to  the  tenants'  petitions  which
          contended, that the  service  complaint  was  not  raised  by  the
          petitioners  before  the  Administrator   although   afforded   an
          opportunity to do so, that once a MCI rent increase is granted  it
          becomes a permanent part of the base rent.

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






          DK 110269-RT, DL 110237-RT


          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,  preserva
          tion, 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.   

          The Commissioner will not  entertain  the  tenants'  assertion  of
          decrease in service which is raised for the first time on appeal.
          The tenants was afforded  an  opportunity  to  file  an  objection
          before  the  Administrator.   The  record  in  the  instant   case
          indicates  that  the  owner  correctly  complied  with  applicable
          procedures for  a  major  capital  improvement  and  the  Rent  Ad
          ministrator properly computed the appropriate rent increases.  The 
          tenants have not established that the increase should be revoked.

          As to the tenant's contention pertaining to the  permanent  nature
          of the increases granted,  the  New  York  Court  of  Appeals  has
          concluded recently that the Rent Stabilization Law authorized this 
          Division to grant permanent rent increases for MCI's and that  the
          law does not limit the time during  which  the  increases  can  be
          imposed.  In the Matter of Ansonia Residents Association, et  al.,
          v. DHCR, et al., 74 N.Y. 2d 604, 543 N.Y.S. 2d 397 (1989).

          This order is issued without prejudice to the  tenants'  right  to
          file an application for a rent reduction based upon a decrease  in
          services, should the facts so warrant.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, 
          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 Rent Administrator's order be, and  the  same  hereby
          is, affirmed.

          ISSUED:


                                                                        
                                          JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                          Deputy                Commissioner