Opinion
Submitted March 6, 2000.
April 24, 2000.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Deputy Commissioner of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, dated July 23, 1997, which dismissed as untimely a petition for administrative review of a rent-reduction order dated March 19, 1997, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cusick, J.), dated December 21, 1998, which dismissed the proceeding.
Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler Schwartz, P.C., New York, N Y (William J. Eberight of counsel), for appellant.
Marcia P. Hirsch, New York, N.Y. (Nava Listokin of counsel), for respondent.
GUY JAMES MANGANO, P.J., LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, LEO F. McGINITY, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
On March 19, 1997, the Rent Administrator for the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (hereinafter the DHCR) reduced the rent for a building owned by the petitioner because of decreases in service. The petitioner then had 35 days in which to file a petition for administrative review (hereinafter PAR), or forfeit its right to have the determination reviewed (see, Rent Stabilization Code [9 N.Y.CRR part 2529.2]). The petitioner's PAR was dated April 29, 1997, and was filed with the DHCR on April 30, 1997. The DHCR dismissed the PAR as time-barred.
The Supreme Court properly dismissed the instant proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, as the strict enforcement by the DHCR of the time requirement was neither arbitrary nor capricious (see,Matter of Blvd. Tenants Corp. v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 264 A.D.2d 444 ; Matter of Ruiz v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 210 A.D.2d 338 ; Matter of Lipes v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 174 A.D.2d 571 ).
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.