Opinion
May 6, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Milton Williams, J.).
The points raised by petitioner that were disposed of by the IAS Court are not objections that could have terminated the proceeding within the meaning of CPLR 7804 (g), and thus we review the matter de novo (see, 8 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N Y Civ Prac ¶ 7804.09). Upon such review, we find that respondent's treatment of two noncontiguous units as a single residence is supported by substantial evidence that neither was used simply for purposes of convenience (see, Briar Hill Apts. Co. v Teperman, 165 A.D.2d 519, 520-521), and that substantial evidence supports respondent's other factual determinations as well.
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Ross, Asch, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.