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.:  DK210305RT
          APPEAL OF
                    VALERIE CONNELL
                                                   RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                   DOCKET NO.:  AI230019OM

                                   PETITIONER
          -------------------------------------X

          ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On November 24, 1989, the above named petitioner-tenant timely 
          filed a petition for administrative review (PAR) against an order 
          issued on October 23, 1989, by a Rent Administrator concerning the 
          housing accommodations known as 400 Lincoln Place Apt. 2E, 
          Brooklyn, NY, wherein the Rent Administrator determined that the 
          owner was entitled to a rent increase based on the installation of 
          major capital improvements (MCIs).

          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 this administrative appeal.

          The owner commenced this proceeding on September 2, 1986, by 
          initially filing an application for a rent increase based on the  
          installation of the following MCIs at a total claimed cost of 
          $115,969.25:
               a)   repiping;
               b)   new windows;
               c)   boiler;
               d)   pointing; and 
               e)   new roof.

          The tenant objected to the owner's MCI application, alleging among 
          other things, that the windows were not installed properly; and 
          that they were installed by a prior owner.

          The landlord did not respond to the tenant's objections.

          The DHCR conducted a physical inspection of the subject premises on 
          two (2) different occasions in 1987, wherein the inspector noted 
          that repeated attempts to gain access to the petitioner's apartment 
          failed.













          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. DK-210305-RT

          On October 23, 1989, the Rent Administrator issued the order here 
          under review finding that installations for the total approved cost 
          of $70,400.00 qualified as MCIs, 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 stabilized apartments.

          In this petition, the tenant contends, in substance, that the 
          windows were installed by the previous owner in 1986; that the 
          stove does not work properly; and that the apartment is infested 
          with vermin.

          The owner did not respond to the tenant's petition.

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

          Rent increases for major capital improvements are authorized by 
          Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code for rent stabilized 
          apartments.  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 evidence of record in the instant case indicates that the 
          issues raised on appeal, with exception to the ownership issue, 
          were not raised in the proceeding below and therefore, may not 
          receive consideration at this time pursuant to 9 NYCRR 2529.6.

          Regarding the ownership issue, it is an established policy of the 
          DHCR to accept applications from new owners for MCIs made to its 
          premises prior to ownership when the previous owner has not filed 
          an application.  In instances where the application was pending 
          prior to the change in ownership, the new owner is entitled to the 
          increase.

          The Commissioner notes that this order and opinion is issued 
          without prejudice to the right of the tenant to file an apartment 
          services complaint with the DHCR which may result in a reduction 
          from the current rent, if the facts so warrant.

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

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

          ISSUED:                                      ____________________
                                                         Joseph A. D'Agosta
                                                        Deputy Commissioner