Opinion
Submitted March 2, 2000.
April 13, 2000.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Deputy Commissioner of the respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, dated January 5, 1998, which, inter alia, affirmed an order of the Rent Administrator directing a rent reduction for the subject premises, the petitioner appeals, as limited by its brief from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), entered December 24, 1998, as dismissed the proceeding.
Belkin Burden Wenig Goldman, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Joseph Burden, Magda L. Cruz, and Phillip Billet of counsel), for petitioner-appellant.
Marcia P. Hirsch, New York, N.Y. (Susan E. Kearns of counsel), for respondent.
MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, HOWARD MILLER, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the appeal of the proposed intervenor-appellants is dismissed for failure to perfect the same in accordance with the rules of this court (see, 22 NYCRR 670.8[e]); and it is further,
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from by the petitioner; and it is further,
ORDERED that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs payable by the petitioner.
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, it was not entitled to notice of the inspector's report and an additional opportunity to remedy the defective conditions prior to the issuance of the Rent Administrator's order (see, Matter of Bel Air Leasing Ltd. Partnership v. Division of Hous. Community Renewal, 259 A.D.2d 542 ;Matter of Notre Dame Leasing v. Division of Hous. Community Renewal, 251 A.D.2d 583 ; Matter of H H; Equities v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 235 A.D.2d 360 ; Matter of Albert v. Eimicke, 151 A.D.2d 746 ; Matter of Rubin v. Eimicke, 150 A.D.2d 697 ;Matter of Empress Manor Apts. v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 147 A.D.2d 642 ; cf., Matter of Brusco v. State of New York Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 239 A.D.2d 210 ).
Furthermore, under all of the circumstances, the respondent's determination contained sufficient findings and conclusions to apprise the petitioner of the defective conditions at the subject building and the basis for the imposition of the rent reduction. Since that determination had a rational basis in the record, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the proceeding (see, Matter of Bel Air Leasing Ltd. Partnership v. Division of Hous. Community Renewal, 259 A.D.2d 542 ; Matter of Melohn v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 234 A.D.2d 23).
The petitioner's remaining contention is without merit.