Opinion
April 27, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Goldstein, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The subject apartment was located in a 20-building, rent stabilized, multiple dwelling garden apartment complex which the petitioners bought in 1977. In 1985-1986 the petitioners converted the complex into independent buildings with less than six units, sold nine, and retained the remaining 11, including the building in which the subject apartment was located. Contrary to the petitioners' contention, the respondent's determination that the subject apartment remained rent regulated notwithstanding the post-conversion vacancy was neither irrational nor arbitrary and capricious (see, 9 NYCRR 2520.11 [d]; Matter of Shubert v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 162 A.D.2d 261).
We have considered the petitioners' remaining contention and find it to be without merit.
O'Brien, J.P., Santucci, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.