Opinion
June 29, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.).
Intervenor's waiver of rights under article 7-C that petitioner claims is to be found in his June 12, 1983 agreement with intervenor rests on doubtful or equivocal acts or language, and is otherwise not sufficiently established to warrant rejection of respondent's finding that there was no such waiver (see, Matter of East 56th Plaza v. Abrams, 91 A.D.2d 1129, 1130).
We have not considered such of petitioner's arguments that are based on facts dehors the record (see, American Express Bank v Uniroyal, Inc., 164 A.D.2d 275, 277, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 807), or which were not presented in the administrative proceeding (see, Brusco v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 170 A.D.2d 184, 185, appeal dismissed 77 N.Y.2d 939, cert denied ___ US ___, 112 S Ct 172). Nor do we make any determination of private rights based on contract (see, Pauk v. Board of Trustees, 111 A.D.2d 17, 20, affd 68 N.Y.2d 702). We do note, however, that petitioner is not precluded from asserting his contract rights, if any, in the related plenary action, which the IAS Court properly declined to consolidate with the instant proceeding.
We have considered the remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Ellerin, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.