FC 430268-RO
                                

                        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. 5838
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE     ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NOS.:
                                        FC 430268-RO
    DAVID EISENSTEIN REAL ESTATE
c/o HORING & WELIKSON                   DRO DOCKET NO.:
                                        7MBC 00353-M
                        PETITIONER      (7MI 10218-M)
----------------------------------x

  ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                
                                
On  March  19,  1991 the above-named petitioner-owner  refiled  a
Petition  for  Administrative Review against an order  issued  on
October  26, 1990 by the Director of the Maximum Base Rent  Unit,
92-31  Union  Hall  Street, Jamaica, New York concerning  housing
accommodations known as 755 West End Avenue, New York, New  York,
various accommodations.

Subsequent thereto, the petitioner-owner filed a petition in  the
Supreme  Court pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil  Practice  Law
and Rules requesting that the "deemed denial" of the petitioner's
administrative  appeal  be annulled.   The  proceeding  was  them
remitted,  by  Court order, to the Division for consideration  of
the petitioner's administrative appeal.

On  January  27,  1987,  the Director issued  an  order  granting
1986-1987  MBR increases for the subject building.   (Docket  No.
7MI 10218-M).

On  October  26,  1990, the Director issued  the  order  appealed
herein  which  revoked  the January 27, 1987  order  based  on  a
determination  that  the owner had failed to meet  the  violation
certification  requirements in order to qualify for 1986-1987 MBR
increases.  The  Director  indicated  that  a  January  28,  1988
inspection  conducted  by the Office of Code  Enforcement  showed
that among other things, three (3) rent impairing violations were
still unabated.

In  this  petition,  the owner contends  that  all  of  the  rent
impairing  violations reported in the 1986 MBR  List  of  Pending
Violations  were  cleared well in advance of the 1988  inspection
and  that  "[a]t the very least, the list in 1986 was pared  down
from seven such violations to two violations."  The owner further
contends  that  the two rent impairing violations, which  concern
the removal of rubbish and other encum-brances, that appeared  on
the  1986  list and again in the 1988 inspection report  did  not
relate  to the same items, i.e., that the rubbish, etc.  referred
to  in the 1986 list was not the same rubbish referred to in  the
1988  inspection report.  The owner submits a statement from  the
managing  agent  who  asserts  the  these  violations  have  been
removed.

The  Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should  be
denied.

Procedures  established under the Rent and  Eviction  Regulations
provide,  among  other  things, that  no  rent  increase  may  be
authorized under the Maximum Base Rent program commencing January
1,  1986  unless the owner has removed all of the rent  impairing
violations  (as  defined  in the multiple  dwelling  law  Section
302(a)  and  at least 80% of all other (i.e., non-rent impairing)
violations  on record as of January 1, 1985, or six months  prior
to  the  filing of the 1986-87 violation certification, whichever
is  later.  In this proceeding, the owner certified on  July  26,
1985 that it had removed the violations which were on record, six
months earlier.

The  1986 MBR List of Pending Violations for the subject building
shows that on January 1, 1985 there were seven (7) rent impairing
violations  and  twenty-eight (28) non-rent impairing  violations
pending  against the subject building.  Therefore,  in  order  to
qualify  for  1986-87 MBR increases, the owner  was  required  to
correct  the seven (7) rent impairing violations and twenty-three
(23) of the 28 non-rent impairing violations.

On   January  28,  1988,  inspectors  from  the  Office  of  Code
Enforcement  conducted  a  physical  inspection  of  the  subject
premises  and reported, among other things, that three  (3)  rent
impairing violations were unabated.  Based thereon, it cannot  be
found that the requisite number of violations pending against the
subject building as of January 1, 1985 were cleared, corrected or
abated.  Therefore,  the  owner is not entitled  to  1986-87  MBR
increases.

Regarding  the  owner's  contentions  that  it  had  removed  all
violations  prior  to the 1988 inspection and that  the  rubbish,
etc.  reported  in the 1988 inspection is not the  same  as  that
reported  in  the  1986  MBR  List  of  Pending  Violations,  the
Commissioner  notes  that  the  report  of  the  Office  of  Code
Enforcement  inspec-tors is of greater probative value  than  the
bare  allegations  of  the  owner  regarding  the  existence   of
violations.


Further,  the  owner  has  not submitted sufficient  evidence  to
substantiate  its contentions.  The fact that the  rubbish,  etc.
reported  in 1986 and that reported in 1988 are not the  same  is
not  relevant  in  determining  whether  the  violations  related
thereto exist.  It is the owner's responsibility to see that  the
violations   in  question  the  existence  of  any  rubbish   and
encumbrances  in the designated areas are cleared,  corrected  or
abated.

THEREFORE,  in  accordance with the provisions of  the  Rent  and
Eviction Regulations, it is

ORDERED,  that this petition be, and the same hereby is,  denied;
and the Director's order be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.

ISSUED:




ELLIOT SANDER
                                         Deputy Commissioner