Opinion
March 31, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (William J. Davis, J.).
The regulations in issue were properly upheld by the IAS court as consistent with the Mitchell-Lama Law and promulgated pursuant to defendants' delegated authority under Private Housing Finance Law §§ 32 and 32-a (see, Ostrer v Schenck, 41 N.Y.2d 782). Although the statute does not specifically delineate how defendants may exercise their authority when a housing company seeks to dissolve, defendants properly "fill[ed] in the interstices in the legislative product by prescribing rules and regulations consistent with the enabling legislation" (Matter of Nicholas v Kahn, 47 N.Y.2d 24, 31).
Concur — Carro, J.P., Wallach, Asch and Rubin, JJ.