FF 410637-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.:   
                                                  FF              410637-RT
                   LEONARD QUIRINO,     
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                  PETITIONER      DC 410218-OM        
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW   


          On June 2, 1991, the above-named tenant,  filed  a  petition  for
          administrative review of an order issued on May 30,  1991,  by  a
          Rent Administrator concerning the building known as 140 East  7th
          Street, New  York,  New  York,  wherein  the  Rent  Administrator
          determined that the owner was entitled to a rent  increase  based
          on major capital improvements (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 March 24, 1989  by  filing
          an application  for  a  rent  increase  based  on  major  capital
          improvements, to wit - burner/boiler, mailboxes, entrance  doors,
          a compactor at a total cost of $51,416.00.

          On May 31, 1989, 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.

          Various  tenants,  but  not  the  petitioner  herein,   responded
          objecting to the  increase  alleging  inadequate  heat,  lack  of
          security and compactor problems.  Copies  of  the  tenants'  com-
          plaints were mailed to the owner.  In its letter of October 18, 

          1990, the owner advised that the  tenants'  complaints  had  been
          addressed.  An inspection conducted on April  30,  1991  reported
          that the boiler, compactor, and building vestibule  and  entrance
          door lock were all functioning properly.

          On May 30, 1991, the Rent Administrator  issued  the  order  here
          under review finding that the installations  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







          FF 410637-RT
          rent increases for rent stabilized apartments.  

          No rent increases were authorized based on  the  installation  of
          new mailboxes in the same location.

          In his petition for administrative review,  the  tenant  requests
          modification of the Rent Administrator's order and  alleges  that
          the front door lock is easily broken and left unlocked  and  that
          the boiler often does not function.

          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 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code for rent stabilized 
          apartments.  Under rent stabilization, the improvement must  gen-
          erally be building-wide; depreciable under the  Internal  Revenue
          Code, other than for ordinary repairs; required  for  the  opera-
          tion, preservation, and maintenance of the structure; and replace 
          an item whose useful life has expired.

          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 tenant has not established  that
          the increase should be revoked.

          The Commissioner notes that the same issues raised by  the  peti-
          tioner for the first time on appeal were raised by other  tenants
          before the Rent Administrator who  investigated  the  allegations
          and based on two physical inspections conducted  on  January  31,
          1991 and on April 30, 1991, found that the conditions were not as 
          alleged.

          The Commissioner notes that while the tenant questions the  find-
          ings of fact, the  record  clearly  reflects  those  findings  by
          virtue of DHCR inspections which occurred on January 31, 1991 and 
          April 30, 1991. 


          This order and opinion is issued without prejudice  to  the  ten-
          ants' rights as  they  may  pertain  to  an  application  to  the
          Division for a reduction of rent based upon a reducti n  of  ser-
          vices.


          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 Rent Administrator's order be, and the  same  hereby
          is, affirmed.


          ISSUED:










          FF 410637-RT
                                                                           
                                                ELLIOT SANDER
                                                Deputy Commissioner