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  S.J.R. NO.: 7392
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE :  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.: GG410205RO
                                              :  
            JACK ROSENTHAL                       RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                 DOCKET NO.: EK410152OM
                                PETITIONER    : 
          ------------------------------------X                             

                  ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING PROCEEDING ON APPEAL

          The above-named petitioner-owner timely filed a Petition for 
          Administrative Review against an order issued on June 19, 1992 by 
          the Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza), concerning housing 
          accommodations known as 155 East 23rd Street, New York, New York, 
          wherein the Rent Administrator denied the owner's application for 
          a major capital improvement (MCI) rent increase based on the 
          installations of a new boiler and a new roof.

          Thereafter the owner filed a petition in the Supreme Court pursuant 
          to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules seeking an order 
          of mandamus.  This resulted in a Court ordered stipulation 
          remitting the proceeding for a determination of the owner's 
          administrative appeal herein.

          In its petition the owner contends, in substance, that the 
          Administrator incorrectly denied an MCI rent increase for the 
          installations of the new boiler and the new roof since it submitted 
          its application in a timely fashion to the Division.

          In response to the owner's petition, the tenant of apartment No. 
          606 asserts, in substance, that since the old boiler and the roof 
          had exhausted their useful lives, the new installations should be 
          considered as regular maintenance; and that the owner is not 
          entitled to an additional increase for same.

          The owner responded by stating, in substance, that the tenant's 
          assertion is meritless.

          After careful consideration of the entire record, the Commissioner 
          is of the opinion that this proceeding should be remanded to the 
          Administrator for further processing.

          Rent increases for MCIs are authorized by Section 252.4 of the Rent 
          Stabilization Code for Rent Stabilized 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, 










          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GG410205RO; SJR 7392

          preservation, and maintenance of the structure; and replace an item 
          whose useful life has expired.  Piecemeal work or ordinary repairs 
          and maintenance does not constitute work for which a rent increase 
          adjustment is warranted under current and past procedures.

          It is the established position of the Division that the 
          installations of a new boiler and roof constitute major capital 
          improvements for which rent increases may be warranted, provided 
          the owner otherwise so qualifies.  Section 2522.4(a)(8) of the Rent 
          Stabilization Code precludes a rent increase for an MCI when the 
          application is filed more than two years after the completion of 
          the installation.  A review of the record discloses that the boiler 
          installation was completed on December 14, 1988, and the roof 
          installation was completed on November 1, 1988, as evidenced by 
          contractors' certifications and cancelled checks submitted with the 
          instant application.  Furthermore, the record discloses that said 
          application was initially received by the Division of Housing and 
          Community Renewal (DHCR) on October 30, 1990.  Therefore, the 
          Commissioner finds that the application was timely filed as 
          required by Section 2522.4(a)(8) of the Rent Stabilization Code.  
          In view of the foregoing, the Commissioner deems it appropriate to 
          remand this proceeding to the Rent Administrator for further 
          consideration as may be deemed necessary to complete such 
          processing of the owner's application on its merits.

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

          ORDERED, that this proceeding be, and the same hereby is, granted 
          to the extent of remanding this proceeding to the Rent 
          Administrator for further consideration in accordance with this 
          order and opinion.  The Rent Administrator's order of June 19, 1992 
          is hereby revoked.

          ISSUED:








                                                                            
                                                     JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                     Deputy Commissioner