DHCR Decisions          CB110240RO                                  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.:  CB110240RO                                                                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S                                                DOCKET NO.:  BF110567S                ESCO ASSOCIATES/DAVID ESHAGPOUR,                                                                                  PREMISES: 94-26 34th Rd.,                                                          Apt. #5D,                                                                    Jackson Heights, NY                                                                                         PETITIONER            ----------------------------------x                                                                                                        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          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.                        CB110240RO                                           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          leakage.               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          reductions.               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.          CB110240RO               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.          ISSUED:                                                                                      ___________________                                                          Joseph A. D'Agosta                                                          Deputy Commissioner