FI 110197-RT;  FI 110198-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
          APPEALS OF                              DOCKET NOS.:  
                                                  FI              110197-RT
                  ELI BRAUDIE AND                 FI 110198-RT
                  OLGA AGASSO,                                   
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                  PETITIONERS     CH 130083-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.

          The above-named tenants, timely filed petitions  for  administra-
          tive review of an order issued on August 23,  1991,   by  a  Rent
          Administrator concerning the building  known  as  89-17  Rutledge
          Avenue,  Glendale,  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 August 9, 1988  by  filing
          an application for a rent  increase  based  on  a  major  capital
          improvement, to wit - a new boiler and burner at a total cost  of
          $37,600.00.

          On January 11 and April 18, 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 tenant of Apartment 1  did  not  file  an  objection  to  the
          owner's application although afforded the opportunity to do so.
          The  tenant  of  the  second  floor  apartment  alleged   service
          deficiencies unrelated to the installation.

          On August 23, 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







          FI 110197-RT;  FI 110198-RT
          documentation submitted by the owner,  and  allowing  appropriate
          rent increases for rent stabilized apartments.  
                         
          In their petitions for administrative review, the tenants request 
          reversal of the Rent Administrator's order and allege that it  is
          the owner's responsibility to keep the property in  good  repair.
          The tenant of Apartment 1 alleges inadequate  heat  and  attaches
          copies of her gas bills in substantiation of her allegation.

          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 Stabilizati n  Code  for  rent  stabi-
          lized 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 Commissioner notes that the tenant of Apartment 1  raised  no
          objection regarding  the  adequacy  or  quality  of  the  owner's
          installation when this proceeding was  pending  before  the  Rent
          Administrator.  Accordingly, the Commissioner finds, pursuant  to
          Section 2529.6 of the Rent Stabilization Code, th t  the  allega-
          tions made now, for the first time on administrative appeal,  may
          not be considered herein.  The Commissioner  further  notes  that
          the record indicates that the installation of a new boiler/burner 
          is not maintenance or repair but a major capital improvement.

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

          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.



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

          ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are, denied 
          and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the  same  hereby
          is, affirmed.


          ISSUED:


                                                                           
                                                ELLIOT SANDER
                                                Deputy Commissioner









          FI 110197-RT;  FI 110198-RT