Opinion
1438
June 20, 2002.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Braun, J.), entered May 11, 2001, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant CPLR article 78 to annul a determination of respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), dated July 20, 2000, affirming the denial of petitioner's application for a major capital improvement (MCI) rent increase, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
PAUL N. GRUBER for Petitioner-appellant.
CAROLINE M. SULLIVAN, for Respondent-respondent.
Saxe, J.P., Sullivan, Lerner, Rubin, Friedman, JJ.
Respondent properly denied petitioner's application for an MCI rent increase on the ground that the premises for which the increase was sought was affected with outstanding and unexplained immediately hazardous, i.e. "C", violations (see, Rent Stabilization Code § 2522.4[a][13]; New York City Housing Maintenance Code § 27-2115[d]). Petitioner failed to submit evidence to the DHCR Administrator, either when the matter was initially considered or upon its reconsideration, that all "C" violations had been removed and thus failed to meet its burden to justify the rent increase sought (see, Matter of Brotherton v. State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 193 A.D.2d 500). In reaching the challenged determination, respondent properly relied on HPD inspection reports forwarded to it by petitioner (see, Matter of 251 W. 98th St. Owners, L.L.C. v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 276 A.D.2d 265). Finally, respondent's refusal to grant petitioner a conditional increase pursuant to Rent Stabilization Code § 2522.4(a)(13) was rationally based on the administrative record and, accordingly, constituted a proper exercise of respondent's discretion (see, Matter of Residential Mgt. v. Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 234 A.D.2d 154).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.