Opinion
February 16, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ruskin, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The subject premises consist of two adjacent 3 1/2-story apartment houses in Port Chester, New York, one containing 8 dwelling units and the other containing 6. The two buildings have a long history of common ownership and a similar appearance. Based upon a physical inspection by the respondent's inspector which found that the premises shared a common heating plant and common basement, the respondent determined that the premises constitute a single horizontal multiple dwelling and are therefore subject to the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974.
The petitioners owners of the premises point to a number of separate characteristics and argue that the inspector's findings did not form a sufficient basis for the determination. Contrary to the petitioners' assertions, we find that the respondent's determination was neither irrational nor arbitrary and capricious.
A determination of the respondent which is rationally based and in accordance with the law should be upheld (see, Matter of Mounting Finishing Co. v McGoldrick, 294 N.Y. 104; Matter of Gottlieb v Mirabal, 123 A.D.2d 574, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 609). Even where there are divergent factors which might well lead to different conclusions, the determination of the agency responsible for administering the statute, unless irrational, should be upheld (see, Matter of Love Sec. Corp. v Berman, 38 A.D.2d 169, 171).
The respondent's interpretation of the applicable regulatory provisions to mean that a "horizontal multiple dwelling" need not also constitute a "garden-type maisonette dwelling complex" as defined by Multiple Dwelling Law § 163 before it may come under the Emergency Tenant Protection Act is rational (see, Matter of Plaza Mgt. Co. v City Rent Agency, 48 A.D.2d 129, affd 37 N.Y.2d 837). Thus, its interpretation of the regulatory provisions should be upheld (see, Cosmo Realty Corp. v Scruggs-Leftwich, 118 A.D.2d 826, appeal dismissed and lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 728). Lawrence, J.P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Balletta, JJ., concur.