Opinion
November 27, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feinberg, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Contrary to the petitioners' contentions on appeal, the determination of the respondent that the petitioners had decreased services required under the Rent Stabilization Law in a building owned and managed by them was neither arbitrary nor capricious nor an abuse of discretion (see, Matter of Ansonia Residents Assn. v New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 75 N.Y.2d 206; see also, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222).
We have considered the petitioners' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Balletta, J.P., Ritter, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.