Opinion
March 31, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola, J.).
Judgment affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The plaintiffs failed to meet their burden to establish the unconstitutionality of the Laws of 1983 (ch 353). The record demonstrates that the statute was enacted in order to deal with the emergency created by the plaintiffs' demands for dramatic rent increases. While the method of dealing with the crisis may not have been the only one possible, and may not even have been the best solution, the Legislature's response to the crisis was neither irrational nor unreasonable, and therefore is constitutional (see, Bucho Holding Co. v. Temporary State Hous. Rent Commn., 11 N.Y.2d 469).
The New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (hereinafter the Division) is entitled to have its interpretation of the regulating statute upheld as long as that construction is not irrational (Minton v. Domb, 63 A.D.2d 36). Here, the Division concluded that the housing which became decontrolled with respect to the Emergency Housing Rent Control Law automatically became subject to the Emergency Tenant Protection Act (hereinafter the ETPA). In view of the language in the ETPA which speaks of housing "heretofore or hereafter decontrolled" (McKinney's Uncons Laws of N.Y. § 8623 [a]), the Division's construction is not irrational, and therefore must be upheld.
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions have been considered and found to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Gibbons, Niehoff and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.