STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                             DOCKET NO.:  CB110240RO 
                                                RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                DOCKET NO.:  BF110567S      
          ESCO ASSOCIATES/DAVID ESHAGPOUR,                                   
                                                PREMISES: 94-26 34th Rd.,
                                                          Apt. #5D,          
                                                          Jackson Heights, NY  

               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 
          was correct.

               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 
          owner's petition.  

               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 
          conditions existed.
               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         
                                                  Deputy Commissioner        



TenantNet Home | TenantNet Forum | New York Tenant Information
DHCR Information | DHCR Decisions | Housing Court Decisions | New York Rent Laws
Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Contact Us

Subscribe to our Mailing List!
Your Email      Full Name