FF 610501-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              610501-RT
                 MARY E. HOLLINGSWORTH,                          
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                  PETITIONER      DE 630025-OM
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW   


          On June 14, 1991, the above-named tenant, filed  a  petition  for
          administrative review of an order issued on April 17, 1991, by  a
          Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodation known  as
          Apartment 3-C, 1881 Sedgewick 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 deems the petition timely  filed  because  the  Rent
          Administrator's order had not been served upon this tenant.

          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 2, 1988 by filing an 
          application for a rent increase based on a major capital improve 
          ment, to wit - new windows at a total cost of $68,505.00.

          On July 5, 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.

          The petitioning tenant had not yet taken occupancy at the time of 
          the filing of the owner's application.

          On April 17, 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 controlled  and  rent  stabilized  apart-
          ments.  
                         
          In her petition for administrative review, the current tenant  of
          Apartment 3-C requests reversal of the Rent Administrator's order 
          and alleges, inter alia, that she leased the  apartment  in  1989







          FF 610501-RT                
          and was unaware of any pending increase at the time.   The  first
          notice of the increase, she alleges, was her June  3,  1991  rent
          notice from the owner.

          After careful consideration the Commissioner is  of  the  opinion
          that this petition should be denied.

          The Commissioner  notes  that  the  tenant's  petition  does  not
          challenge the sufficiency of the improvement or  its  eligibility
          for an increase.  The gravamen of the petition is the  allegation
          regarding notice and the issue of collectibility of the  increase
          as it pertains to the petitioner.

          The tenant is advised that the  attachment  to  the  order  under
          review provides under "CONDITIONS":

               2.   For the increase granted by this  Order  to  be
                    collectible during  the  term  of  the  current
                    lease;  a)  the lea e  must  contain  a  provi-
                    sion   authorizing   the   collection   of   an
                    increase pursuant  to  a  DHCR  Order;  and  b)
                    where the application  for  this  increase  was
                    pending prior to the  commencement  date  of  a
                    vacancy lease, the  increase  granted  in  this
                    Order is collectible only if  such  lease  con-
                    tains  a  specific  provision   regarding   the
                    application  pending  before  the  Division  of
                    Housing and Community Renewal,  the  basis  for
                    the  application,   and   that   any   increase
                    granted pursuant  to  a  DHCR  Order  would  be
                    effective during the term of the lease.

          Since the order under review itse f  contains  a  provision  pro-
          tecting the tenant from an increase  based  on  a  major  capital
          improvement effectuated without notice, there  is  no  reason  to
          disturb the administrator's order.   The  tenant  is  advised  to
          refer to her lease, which was not attached to the petition and is 
          not part of the record.





          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:


                                                                           
                                                ELLIOT SANDER
                                                Deputy Commissioner








          FF 610501-RT