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. FJ 420435-RT
                                         :  
                                            DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
        MARGARET FRANKLIN,                  DOCKET NO. EJ 430025-RP
                           PETITIONER    :             (AL 430120-OM)
     ------------------------------------X                             

           ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

     On October 30, 1991 the above named petitioner-tenant refiled  a  Petition
     for Administrative Review against an order issued on July 8, 1991  by  the
     Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New York  concerning
     housing accommodations known as 220 West 71st Street, New York,  Apartment
     73.

     The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the  record  and  has
     carefully considered that portion of the  record  relevant  to  the  issue
     raised by the administrative appeal.

     This proceeding was commenced on December 24, 1986 by the owner filing  on
     application  for  Major  Capital  Improvement  (MCI)  increases  for   the
     installation of new aluminum windows.   The  owner  submitted  documentary
     evidence  showing  it  made  expenditures  totaling  $42,622.00  for  said
     installations.

     On March 30, 1989 the Rent  Administrator  issued  an  order  denying  MCI
     increases based on a determination that the windows had been installed  in
     a piecemeal fashion over a 5 year period and therefore did not  constitute
     an MCI (DRO Docket no. AL 430120-OM.)

     Subsequent thereto, the owner filed a Petition for  Administrative  Review
     (PAR) contending that it was entitled to an  MCI  increase  and  asserting
     that it had installed windows building-wide  except  those  windows  which
     were so new they did not require replacement.

     On October 10, 1990 the Commissioner issued  an  order  finding  that  the
     owner was eligible for MCI increases based on a determination that 82%  of
     the total number of windows in the subject  building  had  been  replaced.
     The proceeding was remanded to the Rent Administrator to  ascertain  which
     apartments received new windows and  to  grant  rent  increases  for  such
     apartments.  (Administrative Review Docket No. DE 430367-RO.)

     On July 8, 1991 the Rent Administrator issued the  herein  appealed  order
     determining that of a total of 235 windows at  the  subject  premises  195
     were installed in 1986.  The Rent Administrator disallowed expenditures of 
     $8,497.00 for the 40 windows installed prior to 1986 and  determined  that
     the tenants of apartments which received these windows  were  exempt  from
     the MCI increase (DRO Docket No. EJ 430025-RP.)







          DOCKET NUMBER: FJ 420535-RT
     In this petition the tenant contends in substance that the MCI increase is 
     not warranted because  the  proposal  initially  submitted  by  the  owner
     indicated that 170 windows had  to  be  replaced,  the  proof  of  payment
     submitted by the owner is questionable and the owner has not  replaced  at
     least 80% of the windows because the window count total is incorrect.

     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   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.

     It is the established position of  the  Division  that  the  building-wide
     installation of new  apartment  windows  and/or  public  area  windows  to
     replace widows which are 25 or more years old constitutes a major  capital
     improvement for  which  a  rent  increase  adjustment  may  be  warranted,
     provided  the  owner  otherwise  so  qualifies.   In  this  respect,   the
     Commissioner notes that work of a piecemeal nature or ordinary repairs and 
     maintenance does not qualify as a major capital improvement.

     However, in recognition of the fact that there are  limited  circumstances
     where  the  replacement  of  all  windows  would  be  an  unnecessary  and
     unwarranted expense, the Commissioner has adopted the position that  where
     an owner has earlier installed new windows the condition of which are such 
     that  their  replacement  is  not  required  or   due   to   the   special
     characteristics of certain other windows which are clearly of  a  distinct
     and different  nature,  that  the  subsequent  replacement  of  all  other
     apartment windows totalling at a minimum at least 80% of the total  number
     of apartment windows in the  building  as  part  of  a  unified  plan  and
     consecutively timed project completed within a reasonable time frame would 
     substantially comply with the requirement of a major capital improvement.

     In this case a review of the record, including the documentation submitted 
     by the owner, shows that of the  235  apartment  windows  at  the  subject
     premises, 195 new windows, or 82%, were  installed  in  1986  and  40  new
     windows  were  installed  earlier,  between  1981  and  1984.   The   Rent
     Administrator properly determined that the  owner  satisfied  factual  and
     procedural requirements for an MCI to the extent recognized  by  the  Rent
     Administrator and properly computed the increase based on the proven  cost
     of the improvement.

     With respect to the tenants contention that the  windows  count  total  is
     incorrect, in that the window  total  used  in  this  proceeding  for  the
     subject premises is 266 and based thereon the owner only replaced  73%  of
     the windows and is not entitled  to  an  MCI  increase,  the  Commissioner
     finds this contention to be without merit.  A review of the record reveals 
     that the  tenant  apparently  obtained  this  number  from  a  copy  of  a
     previously issued order with respect to a building other than the  subject







          DOCKET NUMBER: FJ 420535-RT
     premises cited by the owner in its petition; and that this total bears  no
     relation to the subject building.  The calculation to determine whether or 
     not at least 80% of the apartment windows in a building have been replaced 
     is performed on an individual case basis.

     THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions  of  the  Rent  and  Eviction
     Regulations and the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is

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

     ISSUED:











                                                                   
                                          JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                       Acting Deputy Commissioner