Opinion
May 9, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, we find that the respondent's physical inspection of the subject premises, which confirmed the allegations contained in the tenant complaint, constituted a rational basis for the determination reducing the rent payable in certain rent-controlled apartments (see, Matter of Kingswood Mgt. Corp. v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 168 A.D.2d 450, 451; Matter of Rubin v Eimicke, 150 A.D.2d 697, 699). Furthermore, the petitioner was not denied due process by virtue of the fact that she had not received notice of the respondent's physical inspection of the premises. Similarly, due process did not require that the respondent hold an evidentiary hearing prior to rendering its determination. Indeed, all that due process required was that the petitioner be afforded reasonable notice of the administrative proceeding and an opportunity to present her objections (see, Matter of Rubin v. Eimicke, supra). Since the petitioner was afforded notice of the administrative proceeding and received administrative review of her objections, she cannot successfully claim to have been denied due process.
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit. Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Ritter and Friedmann, JJ., concur.