Opinion
April 12, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berke, J.).
Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
The owner proposed to replace the presence of parking attendants in the garage with various security devices, including a door which would be operated by the tenants with remote control devices, additional lighting, security for windows, and 24-hour surveillance cameras. In addition, the owner proposed to waive garage rent for one year and to reduce garage rentals by 20% thereafter. The respondent's determination that these proposals constituted an "adequate substitute" for the presence of the parking attendants was reasonably based upon the evidence in the record and, thus, was not arbitrary and capricious (CPLR 7803; see, Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222, 231; see also, Matter of Oriental Blvd. Co. v. New York City Conciliation Appeals Bd., 92 A.D.2d 470, affd 60 N.Y.2d 633).
The petitioners' remaining contentions are without merit.
Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.