Opinion
01-03598
Argued April 26, 2002
June 3, 2002
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, dated July 3, 2000, which denied a petition for administrative review, upheld the processing of the tenant's complaint as a fair market rental appeal, and confirmed the finding of a rent overcharge, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated March 15, 2001, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
Felipe Orner, Flushing, N.Y., for appellant.
Marcia P. Hirsch, New York, N.Y. (Aida P. Reyes and Mary Ellen Cronly of counsel), for respondent.
MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, SANDRA L. TOWNES, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the contention of the petitioner, the processing by the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (hereinafter the DHCR) of the tenant's rent-overcharge complaint as a fair-market rent challenge was neither arbitrary nor capricious (see Matter of 1781 Riverside v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 287 A.D.2d 255; Matter of Jemrock Realty Co. v. State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 169 A.D.2d 679, 680; Matter of Jemrock Realty Co. v. Division of Hous. Community Renewal, 166 A.D.2d 222, 223). Moreover, the DHCR's delay in converting the tenant's rent overcharge complaint to a fair-market rent challenge provides no basis for vacating the DHCR's determination (see Matter of Louis Harris Assocs. v. deLeon, 84 N.Y.2d 698, 702; Matter of Gilman v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 290 A.D.2d 280; Matter of Estate of Goldman v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 270 A.D.2d 169; Matter of DiMaggio v. Division of Hous. Community Renewal, 248 A.D.2d 533, 535).
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.
ALTMAN, J.P., SCHMIDT, TOWNES and COZIER, JJ., concur.