Opinion
June 10, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buschmann, J.).
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Special Term properly dismissed the proceeding for failure to exhaust administrative remedies ( see, Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 N.Y.2d 52; Young Men's Christian Assn. v Rochester Pure Waters Dist., 37 N.Y.2d 371). Prior to commencing the instant CPLR article 78 proceeding, petitioners should have sought review by the New York City Board of Standards and Appeals pursuant to New York City Charter § 666 (7) (a) and New York City Administrative Code § C26-87.5 of the Borough Superintendent's determination to revoke the building permit ( see, Matter of Towers Mgt. Corp. v. Thatcher, 271 N.Y. 94; Matter of Perosi Homes v. Maniscalco, 15 A.D.2d 563; Matter of Valentino v. O'Connell, 33 Misc.2d 224). We reject petitioners' claim that they were deprived of any meaningful administrative appeal to the New York City Board of Standards and Appeals because they had no opportunity to make a record. The New York City Board of Standards and Appeals Rules of Procedure article VI (1), (5), as amended January 4, 1983, indicate that applicants appealing from orders or decisions of the Borough Superintendent are entitled to public hearings, and article I (9) thereof states that "[t]estimony at the hearing may be presented by the applicant and the owner of the subject property and by any expert or person with knowledge of the facts whom they may call". Mollen, P.J., Niehoff, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.