FD 610058-RT;  et al.


                                  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 NOS.:  
                                                   FD 610058-RT; FD 610061-RT;
              MARIA MERCED, PILAR CASTILLO,       FD 610066-RT; FD 610161-RT
              ANGEL CRUZ and EDWIN CRUZ,          RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                  PETITIONERS     CD 630035-OM
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW  


          The Commissioner has consolidated these petitions as they involve 
          common questions of law and fact.

          Various tenants of the subject building  filed  timely  petitions
          for administrative review of an order issued on  March  5,  1991,
          by a Rent Administrator  concerning  the  housing  accommodation,
          known as 1425 Townsend Avenue, Bronx, New York, wherein the  Rent
          Administrator determined that the owner was entitled  to  a  rent
          increase based on a major capital improvement (MCI).

          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 April 12, 1988  by  filing
          an application for a rent  increase  based  on  a  major  capital
          improvement, to wit - a new roof at a total cost of $7,500.00.

          On October 13,  1988,  the  Division  of  Housing  and  Community
          Renewal (DHCR) served each tenant with a copy of the  application
          and afforded the tenants the opportunity to review it and comment 
          thereupon.

          The tenants did not file any objections to t e  owner's  applica-
          tion although afforded the opportunity to do so.

          On March 5, 1991, 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
          documentation submitted by the owner,  and  allowing  appropriate
          rent increases for rent controll d  and  rent  stabilized  apart-
          ments.  
                         
          In their petitions for administrative  review,  the  tenants  re-
          quest reversal of the Rent Administrator's order  and  allege  in







          FD 610058-RT;  et al.
          substance that they did not agree to the roof installation  prior
          to the commencement of the work and that a new  roof  constitutes
          maintenance rather than a major capital improvement.  Two tenants 
          further allege service deficiencies  in  their  apartments.   The
          tenant of Apartment 302 questions the  amount  of  the  per  room
          increase.

          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 t e  Rent  Stabiliza-
          tion Law 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 notes that no tenant permission or agreement  is
          required  prior  to  an  owner's  effectuating  a  major  capital
          improvement.  The rent stabilized tenants of  Apartment  302  and
          303 are advised that the per room increase granted was $ 0.82.
          The tax abatement offset computation applies to  rent  controlled
          tenants only.

          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 increases.  The  tenants  have  not  established
          that the increase should be revoked.

          This order and opinion is issued without prejudice  to  the  ten-
          ants' rights to file complaints based on a diminution of services 
          if the facts so warrant.



          THEREFORE, in accordance with  the  Rent  Stabilization  Law  and
          Code, and the Rent and Eviction Regulations for New York City, 
          it is          

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


          ISSUED:


                                                                           
                                                ELLIOT SANDER
                                                Deputy Commissioner









          FD 610058-RT;  et al.