The petitioner argues that since it received approval from the DOB to submit its application for a building permit as a "site alteration permit," as opposed to a new building permit, that it did so for the very purpose of avoiding the necessity of CPC approval, and that it ultimately received a site alteration permit rather than a new building permit from the DOB, CPC approval was not necessary under the circumstances. The DOB contended that it issued the site alteration permit in error, based upon misrepresentations made by the petitioner during the permit application process, and this reliance upon the petitioner's false statements empowered the DOB to revoke the permit that ultimately was issued, based upon the DOB's authority to remedy the consequences of a false statement or any misrepresentation as to a material fact made in a permit application ( see Administrative Code of City of NY § 27-197; Matter of Brock v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Queensbury, 237 AD2d 670; Wetland Estates v Smith, 109 AD2d 193, affd 67 NY2d 789). In making its determination on the appeal from the DOB's denial of the petitioner's request to lift the "hold" on the building permit application, the BSA, like the DOB, determined that the new construction constituted a "development" requiring CPC approval pursuant to ZR 105-40, and ended its analysis there. The BSA, however, failed to fully consider the petitioner's argument that the DOB permitted it to file the application for a permit as a site alteration and that the construction therefore was not subject to CPC approval pursuant to the exception for site alterations provided by ZR 105-01. Indeed, the BSA seemed to disregard the approval granted by the DOB and merely determined that the nature of the construction qualified it as a "development" and not a "site alteration."

Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition. Because the certificate of existing nonconforming use was issued on the basis of petitioners' misleading representations, it was properly revoked ( see, Matter of Parkview Assocs. v. City of New York, 71 N.Y.2d 274, 282, rearg denied 71 N.Y.2d 995, appeal dismissed and cert denied 488 U.S. 801; Matter of Brock v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 237 A.D.2d 670, 672). The ZBA's determination denying the area variances requested by petitioners is not arbitrary and capricious ( see, Matter of Sasso v. Osgood, 86 N.Y.2d 374, 384-386).

By letter dated October 7, 2005, The DOB relied on its right to revoke a permit pursuant to the Administrative Code of the City of New York by reason of false statements or misstatements of material facts in the application process. Indeed, such inaccuracies, misrepresentations, and the like can be the basis for revocations or similar actions (see, Brock v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 237 AD2d 670; Welland Estates Inc. v. Smith, 109 AD2d 193, aff'd 67 NY2d 789). Since an agency such as DOB is bound by its own regulations (see, Matter of Gilman v. New York State Dir. Of Housing and Community Renewal, 99 NY2d 144), it follows that DOB is bound and limited by ground it asserted, i.e. that petitioner made false misrepresentations in its application.