March 9, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (William P. McCooe, J.).
Petitioner landlord argues that the Fair Market Rent Appeal was jurisdictionally defective because the tenant failed to provide the required factual support for his claim that the initial regulated rent exceeded the Fair Market Rent. Realizing the difficulty a tenant faces in obtaining comparable rent data, respondent interpreted section 25 (C) of the Code of the Rent Stabilization Association of New York City, Inc. (now 9 NYCRR 2522.3 [b]) and section YY51-6.0.2 (b) (1) of the Rent Stabilization Law (now Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 26-513 [b] ) as permissive, not mandatory, thereby giving the tenant the option to provide supplemental facts if he so chose.
Respondent's interpretation of its own regulations and the statute under which it functions is entitled to great weight (Matter of Cale Dev. Co. v. Conciliation Appeals Bd., 94 A.D.2d 229, 232, affd 61 N.Y.2d 976). Respondent's determination that the tenant's application was valid even without initial factual support was not arbitrary and capricious (see, Matter of Ista Mgt. v. State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 161 A.D.2d 424, 426).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Asch and Rubin, JJ.