Opinion
3505.
Decided April 29, 2004.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Tejada, J.), entered on or about June 27, 2003, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul the determination of respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, dated October 2, 2002, granting respondent owners' petition for administrative review and finding that the subject apartment was not subject to the City Rent Control Law during the period of petitioners' tenancy, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Grimble LoGuidice, LLC, New York (Robert Grimble of counsel), for appellant.
Marcia P. Hirsch, New York (Ursula M. Richards of counsel), for state respondent.
Richman Fingerhut, P.C., New York (David L. Fingerhut of counsel), for Speiss respondents.
Before: Tom, J.P., Ellerin, Lerner, Marlow, JJ.
Having failed to oppose the owners' petition for administrative review, the tenants could not raise before the court the factual issues they claimed entitle them to rent-controlled status ( see Matter of Steffey v. New York State Div. Of Hous. Community Renewal, 276 A.D.2d 407, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 709). The agency properly determined, based on its expertise in such matters and in the construction of the regulations it administers, that there had been a "substantial alteration" warranting decontrol.
We have considered petitioners' other contentions and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.