Opinion
December 11, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Barry Cozier, J.).
Petitioner's claim that it was denied due process by respondent's failure to give it notice and opportunity to submit comparability data under amendments to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code that potentially increased the number of apartments that petitioner could have used in respondent's comparability study of the subject apartment was not made at the administrative level and therefore may not be considered for the first time upon judicial review (see, Matter of Parcel 242 Realty v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 215 A.D.2d 132, 134, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 706). In any event, the claim lacks merit, there being no requirement that respondent have notified petitioner of such amendments. Moreover, since the tenant's rent overcharge complaint, later converted to a fair market rent appeal, was filed in November 1983, respondent's order determining the initial legal regulated rent was properly based on the law and code provisions in effect prior to April 1, 1984 (Rent Stabilization Code [ 9 N.Y.CRR] § 2521.1 [d] [1]; Matter of 319 E. 50th St. Assocs. v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 198 A.D.2d 28). We have considered petitioner's other contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Rubin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.