Opinion
April 16, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.).
Contrary to petitioner's contention, the complaint was timely filed (Rent Stabilization Code [9 N.Y.CRR] § 2526.1). Further, the Rent Administrator properly granted reconsideration of its order dated November 17, 1993 due to an "irregularity in vital matters" (Rent Stabilization Code [9 N.Y.CRR] § 2527.8), namely, the failure of respondent to timely serve the parties with the order that aggrieved complainant, which failure functioned to deprive complainant of her right, under the circumstances, to file a Petition for Administrative Review.
Finally, the determinations of the agency were not irrational, arbitrary or capricious ( see, Matter of Fresh Meadows Assocs. v. New York City Conciliation Appeals Bd., 88 Misc.2d 1003, 1004, affd 55 A.D.2d 559, affd 42 N.Y.2d 925), since the record supports respondent's finding that complainant had been charged in excess of the legal regulated rent.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Rubin, Williams, Tom and Saxe, JJ.