STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: CB110240RO
DOCKET NO.: BF110567S
ESCO ASSOCIATES/DAVID ESHAGPOUR,
PREMISES: 94-26 34th Rd.,
Jackson Heights, NY
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for
administrative review of an order issued on January 21, 1988
concerning the housing accommodations relating to the above-
described docket number.
The issue in this appeal is whether the Administrator's order
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 administrative appeal.
This proceeding was commenced on June 19, 1987 by a rent-
stabilized tenant filing a statement of complaint of decrease in
services, asserting that the owner failed to maintain numerous
services in the subject apartment.
On August 18, 1987, the Division mailed a copy of the tenant's
complaint to the owner.
In an answer filed on August 28, 1987, the owner stated that
all repairs were completed on August 25, 1987.
An on-site inspection of the subject apartment was conducted
on November 12, 1987 by a Division staff member who reported that
the bathroom floor is missing tiles behind the toilet and next to
the bathtub, that the living room ceiling is peeling paint and
plaster due to leaks, that the bathroom walls and ceiling are
water-stained, that the kitchen walls and closets were not painted
properly (walls in need of a second coat of paint), and that the
third bedroom and foyer ceiling are discolored due to water
The Administrator directed the restoration of services and
ordered a reduction of the stabilized rent.
In the petition for administrative review, the owner contends
that the order appealed from is duplicative of other docket
numbers, and that the tenant is availing herself of various rent
On May 16, 1988, the Division mailed the tenant a copy of the
The owner submitted a supplement to the petition on June 25,
1991 asserting that BF110567S is duplicative of EK110263S.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the
opinion that the petition should be denied.
The owner's a petition does not dispute the November 12, 1987
on-site inspection which found defective conditions in the subject
apartment. Accordingly, the Administrator's determination in this
order appealed from, which was based upon the staff inspector's
report, was in all respects proper and is hereby sustained.
The contention that this order (BF110567S) is duplicated by
EK110263S is without merit. A search of Division records shows
more differences than similarities. The order appealed from was
based on a November 12, 1987 inspection, while EK110263S on a
February 26, 1991 inspection. The order appealed from found 5
defective conditions, while EK110263S determined that 13 defective
The Commissioner notes that the owner filed a petition
(FD110263RO) for administrative review of EK110263S. This petition
was granted in part on March 20, 1992 solely on the basis that the
"foyer outlet" was not an item complained of by the tenant. The
other defective conditions remain.
The Commissioner further notes that the owner's rent
restoration application (DK110151OR) in reference to BF110567S was
denied on August 2, 1990.
Based on a review of the entire record, the Commissioner finds
that the Administrator's order is correct.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code, it is,
ORDERED, that the petition for administrative review be, and
the same hereby is, denied, and that the Administrator's order
(BF110567S) be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
Joseph A. D'Agosta