IN RE: 166 ST (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of a Deputy Commissioner of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal dated July 22, 2022, which upheld a determination of a Rent Administrator dated April 17, 2018, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Mojgan C. Lancman, J.), entered April 3, 2023.  The judgment denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

In September 2022, the petitioner, 166 St, LLC, the owner of a rent-stabilized apartment, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to review a determination of a Deputy Commissioner of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (hereinafter the DHCR) dated July 22, 2022.  The determination upheld a Rent Administrator's determination, which was in favor of a tenant of the subject apartment in connection with the tenant's rent overcharge complaint.  In a judgment entered April 3, 2023, the Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.  The petitioner appeals.

“Judicial review of an administrative determination is generally limited to whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion” (Matter of CHT Place, LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 219 AD3d 486, 487).  “In general, a reviewing court must defer to an administrative agency's rational interpretation of its own regulations in its area of expertise” (Matter of Hillside Park 168, LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 200 AD3d 964, 966).

Here, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.  The DHCR's determination setting the on-time discounted rent as the legal regulated rent for the subject apartment was supported by a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Hillside Park 168, LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 200 AD3d 964;  Matter of One Ninety Sixth St, LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 200 AD3d 961;  Matter of Kings Park 8809, LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 200 AD3d 959).

The petitioner's remaining contention is without merit.

IANNACCI, J.P., CHAMBERS, WARHIT and GOLIA, JJ., concur.