Opinion
April 29, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The respondent's determination that the petitioner willfully collected excessive rents and was thereby liable for overcharges and penalties in the amount levied has a rational basis in the record and will not be disturbed. Contrary to the petitioner's contention, his prior extensive connections with both the property and its prior owner exclude him from the protection of Rent Stabilization Code ( 9 NYCRR 2526.1 [f] [2]). There is no merit to the petitioner's contention that his unsuccessful efforts at obtaining the rent registration records of the building from the respondent mandate a finding that the overcharges in question were not willful ( see, Matter of 4947 Assocs. v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 199 A.D.2d 179).
The petitioner's remaining contentions are either without merit ( see, Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 11-424 [e]; § 26-507 [c]) or based upon facts which were not before the respondent ( see, Matter of Levine v. New York State Liq. Auth., 23 N.Y.2d 863; Matter of Fanelli v. New York City Conciliation Appeals Bd., 90 A.D.2d 756, affd 58 N.Y.2d 952). Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.