Opinion
June 1, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (William Davis, J.).
Respondent's determination to include debt service arrears as current operating expenses in calculating a rent increase application for this Mitchell-Lama publicly assisted limited profit development conformed to the agency's statutory responsibilities (Private Housing Finance Law §§ 28, 31), as the Legislature did not intend the goal of providing low and middle income housing "to be achieved at any cost" as housing companies "should be able to charge rents that enable them to pay their expenses, including debt service, and to receive a return on their investment" ( Matter of Arbor Hill Partners v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 156 A.D.2d 896, 898, 899, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 711). The court also properly rejected petitioner's argument that the debt service allocation was a double payment. Accordingly, the Division of Housing and Community Renewal determination was neither arbitrary nor capricious and was supported by the record, and thus the petition was properly dismissed ( see, Matter of Eastwood Bldg. Comm. v Eimicke, 130 A.D.2d 425, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 816).
Concur — Rubin, J.P., Kupferman, Asch and Tom, JJ.