Opinion
June 19, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (William P. McCooe, J.).
Petitioner's unilateral action in combining apartments, thereby reducing the number of residential units from seven to five subsequent to the base date for rent stabilization purposes, cannot effect an exemption from the pertinent regulations (see, Administrative Code of City of New York § 26-504 [Rent Stabilization Law]; Emergency Tenant Protection Act § 5 [a] [4] [L 1974, ch 576, § 4]; 9 NYCRR 2520.11). Such a result would be inconsistent with the purposes underlying the legislation regulating rents for multiple dwellings (see, Matter of Jaffe v New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, index No. 17817/86, Sup Ct, N Y County, affd 144 A.D.2d 1040; 129 E. 56 St. Corp. v. Harrison, 115 Misc.2d 506, 512).
DHCR's interpretation of the statutes which it administers is accorded great deference (Matter of Salvati v. Eimicke, 72 N.Y.2d 784), and a court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency (Matter of Mid-State Mgt. Corp. v. New York City Conciliation Appeals Bd., 112 A.D.2d 72, affd 66 N.Y.2d 1032). The administrative determination was neither arbitrary nor capricious and was based on substantial evidence.
Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Carro, Milonas, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.