Opinion
March 15, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ain, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the determinations under review are confirmed, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits.
The New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (hereinafter the DHCR) contends that the Supreme Court erred in directing it to establish September 1, 1989, as the effective date for the rent reduction awarded to the petitioner's tenants. We agree. As a general rule, judicial review of an administrative determination is limited to the record adduced before the agency (Matter of Plaza Realty Investors v. New York City Conciliation Appeals Bd., 110 A.D.2d 704), and in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, a specific objection to an order of the DHCR should not be considered by the court unless the objection has been first presented to the agency (see, Matter of Yonkers Gardens Co. v. State of New York Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 51 N.Y.2d 966; Matter of Rozmae Realty v. State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, Off. of Rent Admin., 160 A.D.2d 343; Matter of Klaus v. Joy, 85 A.D.2d 603). Since the petitioner did not raise the issue of whether the DHCR established the proper commencement date for the rent reduction in his administrative appeal, this issue was not properly before the Supreme Court. In any event, we note that the DHCR's determination that the rent reduction should take effect as of the first rent payment date after the petitioner received notification of the tenants' complaint is supported by a rational basis in the record and should not have been disturbed by the Supreme Court (cf., Matter of Yonkers Garden Co. v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 63 A.D.2d 679). Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Eiber and Miller, JJ., concur.