Opinion
June 22, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Having received a copy of the tenant's complaint and having partially restored services to the subject apartment in response thereto, the appellant was not entitled to receive a copy of the respondent's inspection report and a second opportunity to remedy the remaining defective conditions prior to the issuance of the Rent Administrator's order ( see, Matter of HH Equities v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 235 A.D.2d 360; Matter of Albert v. Eimicke, 151 A.D.2d 746; Matter of Rubin v. Eimicke, 150 A.D.2d 697; Matter of Empress Manor Apts. v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 147 A.D.2d 642).
The appellant's contention that the respondent failed to investigate whether the tenant may have caused one of the defective conditions was not advanced before the Rent Administrator and, therefore was properly found to be outside the scope of administrative review ( see, Matter of Levine v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 243 A.D.2d 373; Matter of 455 Ocean Assocs. v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 241 A.D.2d 495; Matter of Birdoff Co. v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 204 A.D.2d 630; Matter of 60 Gramercy Park Co. v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 188 A.D.2d 371). In any event, the appellant failed to come forward with any evidence to substantiate this assertion.
Furthermore, under all of the circumstances, the determination of the respondent contained sufficient findings and conclusions to apprise the appellant of the defective conditions at the subject apartment and the basis for the imposition of the rent reduction. Since that determination had a rational basis in the record, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the appellant's proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 ( see, e.g., Matter of Melohn v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal; 234 A.D.2d 23; Matter of Stavisky v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 204 A.D.2d 462; Matter of Kingswood Mgt. Corp. v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 168 A.D.2d 450).
Copertino, J.P., Thompson, Sullivan and Friedmann, JJ., concur.