Opinion
3351.
Decided April 13, 2004.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered December 3, 2002, which denied the petition for injunctive and declaratory relief from actions taken by the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) and the Department of Buildings, and dismissed the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Stephen Dibbs, appellant pro se.
Marcia P. Hirsch, New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, New York (Mary Ellen Cronly of counsel), for state respondents.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Cheryl Payer of counsel), for municipal respondent.
Benjamin R. Kaplan, New York, for Ten Be Or Not Ten Be, Inc. and Tim Sanders, respondents.
Before: Andrias, J.P., Ellerin, Lerner, Gonzalez, JJ.
This Court has previously found that DHCR's determination to close petitioner's harassment complaint was not an abuse of discretion, and that a proceeding challenging its determination of February 8, 2000, which granted defendant landlord's application for a service and rent reduction, was time-barred ( 292 A.D.2d 164, lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 757). Supreme Court properly declined to entertain petitioner's claims against the Department of Buildings on the ground that he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies ( Matter of Perrotta v. City of New York, 107 A.D.2d 320, affd 66 N.Y.2d 859).
We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.