ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FC 210378 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
          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.: FC  210378  RT
                          
                                              :  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                 DOCKET NO.: BL  230349  OM
                 FLORENCE                                         ROSENBERG
                                                                      
                                                  

                              PETITIONER      : 
          ------------------------------------X 

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


               On March 26, 1991 the above-named tenant refiled a  petition
          for administrative review of an order issued on January 7,  1991,
          by a Rent  Administrator  concerning  the  housing  accommodation
          known as 2069 East 12th Street, Brooklyn, New York,  wherein  the
          Rent Administrator determined that the owner was  entitled  to  a
          rent increase based on a major capital improvement.

               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 petition for review.  

               The owner commenced this proceeding on December 28, 1987  by
          filing an application for a rent increase based on major  capital
          improvements, to wit: boiler/burner; fence; iron  security  door;
          pointing and waterproofing; mailboxes; lobby doors; windows, at a 
          total cost of $32,657.37. 

               On July 8, 1988,  the  Division  of  Housing  and  Community
          Renewal (DHCR) served the tenants with a copy of the  application
          and afforded the tenants the opportunity to review it and comment 
          thereupon.

               Eight tenants, including the petitioner, filed objections to 
          the owner's application.  The owner was notified  to  effect  the
          necessary repairs.  The Administrator mailed a subsequent inquiry 
          to the complaining tenants on November 28, 1990.  The complainant 
          tenant in the instant proceeding did not respond to this inquiry. 


               On January 7, 1991, the Rent Administrator issued the  order
          here under review, finding that the boiler/burner,  the  pointing
          and waterproofing, and the lobby doors qualified as major capital 
          improvements, 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
          apartments.   






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FC 210378 RT

               In  her  petition  for  administrative  review,  the  tenant
          requests reversal of the Rent Administrator's order  and  alleges
          that she was never given an opportunity to respond regarding MCI 
          approved items, all of which do not work properly.

               In answer to the tenant's petition the owner  contends  that
          all of the MCI-approved items are, and always were, in very  good
          working order.

               After careful consideration,  the  Commissioner  is  of  the
          opinion that this petition 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 general y  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  when  that
          item's useful life has expired.

               With regard to the tenant's specific allegation of  lack  of
          notice,  the  record  contains  the  tenant's   answer   to   the
          application dated July 18, 1988, which answer was duly considered 
          by the administrator.

               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 increase.  The tenant  has  not  established
          that the increase should be revoked.

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



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

          ISSUED:







                                                                        
                                          ELLIOT SANDER
                                          Deputy Commissioner








          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FC 210378 RT