November 17, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.).
The Division of Housing and Community Renewal's decision on the landlord's rent restoration application was made upon the agency's examination and appraisal of the pertinent facts ( see, e.g., Matter of Lucot, Inc. v. Gabel, 20 A.D.2d 94, 96-97, affd 15 N.Y.2d 774) and has a rational basis ( see, e.g., Matter of Ponds v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 191 A.D.2d 153, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 657). We find no ground upon which respondent agency's presently relevant interpretations of statutes and regulations it administers might be disturbed ( see, e.g., Matter of Kenton Assocs. v. Division of Hous. Community Renewal, 225 A.D.2d 349, 350).
Concur — Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.