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   ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE     DOCKET NOS.: HH430177RT, 
          APPEALS OF                              HH430178RT, HI430023RT,
                                                  HI430063RT                
          Various Tenants of 840 West End
          Avenue, NY, NY             
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                               PETITIONERS        DOCKET NO: EL430043OM
          ------------------------------------X

          ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW IN 
          PART

          The above named petitioner-tenants timely filed petitions for 
          administrative review (PAR) against an order issued on August 10, 
          1993, by a Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza) concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as 840 West End Avenue, NY, New York, various 
          apartments, wherein the Rent Administrator determined that the 
          owner was entitled to a rent increase based on the installation of  
          major capital improvements (MCIs).

          The Commissioner deems it appropriate to consolidate these 
          petitions for disposition since they pertain to the same order and 
          involve common issues of law and fact.

          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 these administrative appeals.

          The owner commenced this proceeding on December 13, 1990, by 
          initially filing an application for a rent increase based on the 
          installation of the following items at a total claimed cost of 
          $124,201.00:
               
               (A)New burner;
               (B)New prime windows; and
               (C)New intercom.   





















          The tenants objected to the owner's application, alleging, in 
          substance, that the windows were not replaced building-wide; that 
          all the necessary documentation needed to substantiate the 
          application was not provided by the owner; that the J-51 tax 
          abatement applied for by the owner did not receive consideration in 
          the calculation of the proposed increase; that the owner did not 
          actually do all the work claimed; that some of the work done was 
          completed in an unworkmanlike manner; that the owner has not 
          certified that it is maintaining all the required services; and 
          that various violations exist against the premises which should 
          disqualify the owner from receiving an MCI increase.

          The owner made certain adjustments to its initial application which 
          resulted in partial exemptions for some apartments.

          On August 10, 1993, the Rent Administrator issued the order here 
          under review finding that the installations qualified as MCIs, 
          determining that the application, for the most part, complied with 
          the revelant laws and regulations based upon the supporting 
          documentation submitted by the owner, and allowing rent increases 
          for rent regulated tenants based upon total approved costs of 
          $106,984.20.

          In these petitions, the tenants contend, in substance, that the 
          installation of windows in apartment 3B has not been completed; 
          that no new windows were placed in apartment 4C as a result of the 
          window MCI herein the windows of said apartment having been 
          previously replaced at the tenant's own expense; that the 
          installation of windows in apartment 3A was completed after the 
          effective date for the increase; that the costs claimed for the 
          burner are exorbitant; that the approved cost for the window MCI 
          exceeds the actual cost of the MCI; that the burner is not new; 
          that the cost of the intercom MCI is exorbitant; and that there is 
          an outstanding rent reduction order on apartment 5B.

          In response to the tenants' petitions, the owner stated that it 
          adjusted the rents on apartments 3A and 4C based upon an inspection 
          of the premises which revealed that the tenant of apartment 4C did 
          not have the same windows as those placed in other apartments as a 
          result of the instant window installation and that the windows in 
          apartment 3A were installed late because of a dispute between the 
          previous owner and the  contractor. However, the claims of the 
          tenant of apartment 3B were unsubstantiated as said inspection 
          revealed that the window installation in that apartment was 
          complete. With respect to the other allegations raised on appeal, 
          the owner asserts that all MCI expenditures were accompanied by the 
          necessary contracts and cancelled checks as verification of the 
          costs incurred for each MCI; and DHCR approved the MCIs after a 
          review of the documentation.



          After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the 






          Commissioner is of the opinion that these petitions should be 
          granted, in part.

          The evidence of record indicates that the owner has addressed the 
          issues raised herein appropriately and that the Rent Administrator 
          acted properly in granting the increase based upon the owner's 
          submission of the necessary documentation.

          With respect to the tenants' contentions that the costs for the 
          burner and the intercom system which included video surveillance 
          components are exorbitant, it is noted that the tenants have not 
          provided sufficient evidence to refute the supporting documentation 
          submitted by the owner which included armslength contracts and 
          copies of cancelled checks verifying claimed costs.

          The Commissioner notes that any tenant with a rent reduction order 
          in effect due to the owners failure to maintain individual 
          apartment services at the time the rent increase order was issued 
          shall not be responsible for payment of the increase herein until 
          such time as a rent restoration order is issued for the subject 
          apartment and then only on a prospective basis and any retroactive 
          increase is forfeited for the period during which a rent reduction 
          was in effect. The determination herein is without prejudice to the 
          right of the tenants to file apartment service complaints with the 
          DHCR, if the facts so warrant.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, 
          and the New York City Rent and Eviction Regulations, it is

          ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are, granted 
          in part; and that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby 
          is, modified to the extent of changing the effective date for the 
          rent increase on apartment 3A to May 1, 1992, with respect to the 
          installation of new prime windows; and exempting apartment 4C from 
          that portion of the rent increase associated with the window 
          installation. The order of the Administrator is hereby affirmed in 
          all other respects.

          ISSUED:




                                                                          
                                                  JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                  Deputy Commissioner