Opinion
November 1, 2001.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered February 22, 2001, which denied petitioner landlord's CPLR article 78 application seeking to annul a determination of respondent, dated August 18, 2000, finding a reduction in services and ordering a rent reduction, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Patrick K. Munson, for petitioner-appellant.
Jan C. Rose, for respondent-respondent.
Before: Nardelli, J.P., Williams, Ellerin, Friedman, Marlow, JJ.
Respondent's determination that the reduction in the availability of the building laundry room from 24 to 15 hours per day constituted a reduction in service had a rational basis in the record. The credited testimony of the tenants established that the reduction in hours had a significant adverse impact on the tenants' ability to enjoy the laundry service. The question of what constitutes a required service and whether such service was being maintained was a factual issue to be determined by respondent (see, Fresh Meadows Assocs. v. Conciliation and Appeals Bd, 88 Misc.2d 1003, 1004, affd 55 A.D.2d 559, affd, 42 N.Y.2d 925).
Respondent's determination herein was based on the evidence adduced at the hearing, supported by the record, and not contrary to reason.Grenadier Realty Corp. v. New York State Div. of Hous. and Community Renewal ( 225 A.D.2d 425) is distinguishable because in that case there was no testimony establishing the adverse impact of the reduction in laundry room hours. We have considered and rejected petitioner's remaining arguments.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.