Opinion
July 5, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits.
The determination of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal denying the petitioners' requests for major capital improvement rent increases relating to the installation of backflow prevention devices was not irrational or unreasonable, even though these devices are required by law (see, Matter of 126 Franklin Ave. Assocs. v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 203 A.D.2d 464; Matter of Harbor One Co. v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 205 A.D.2d 689). Thus, the determination must be upheld (see, Matter of Ansonia Residents Assn. v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 75 N.Y.2d 206; Matter of Salvati v. Eimicke, 72 N.Y.2d 784). Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.