Opinion
June 15, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Smith, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
We agree with the determination of the Supreme Court that the Commissioner had the authority to modify a prior order of the District Rent Administrator based upon the latter's erroneous determination that there had been a rent overcharge to the petitioner. The Rent Stabilization Code ( 9 NYCRR 2527.8) specifically provides that the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, on its own initiative, may issue an order revoking a prior order which it finds was the result of, among other things, "irregularity in vital matters" ( 9 NYCRR 2527.8). We conclude that the District Rent Administrator's finding that the petitioner had been overcharged rent, later found to be an erroneous determination, constitutes an "irregularity in vital matters" within the meaning of the Rent Stabilization Code. Thus, the Commissioner acted within its authority in revoking the prior order on that basis (see, 9 NYCRR 2527.8; Matter of Orenga v Higgins, 167 A.D.2d 343; Matter of Ista Mgt. v. State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 161 A.D.2d 424). Sullivan, J.P., Harwood, Balletta and Eiber, JJ., concur.