Opinion
June 9, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.).
The reopening of the proceeding, to which the petitioner had never voiced any objection, was both proper and rational (Rent Stabilization Code [9 N.Y.CRR] § 2527.8; cf., Matter of Cupo v McGoldrick, 278 App. Div. 108), and the subsequent finding of a rent overcharge is amply supported by the record (Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222, 230). The alternative procedure for adjusting the base rent utilized by the Division was authorized (Matter of 61 Jane St. Assocs. v. New York City Conciliation Appeals Bd., 65 N.Y.2d 898, affg 108 A.D.2d 636) and had a rational basis in the record that was before the Division (Matter of Lavanant v. State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 148 A.D.2d 185, 192). The remaining arguments were not raised below (cf., Matter of 985 Fifth Ave. v. State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 171 A.D.2d 572, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 861), but, were we to consider them, we would find them to be without merit.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Milonas, Ellerin and Ross, JJ.