The article 78 petition was properly denied as DHCR's determination granting the owner an MCI rent increase had a rational basis in the record ( see Matter of 370 Manhattan Ave. Co., L.L.C. v New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 11 AD3d 370, 372). The rent increase was supported by a contract for the work to be performed, cancelled checks and the contractor's statements verifying the costs and scope of the pointing and waterproofing work performed.
Furthermore, in addition to commencing the above article 78 proceeding, Helgason instituted an action in the Court of Claims, which that court properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Although included in the relief sought by Helgason was a request for money damages, his claim essentially sought judicial review of an administrative determination ( see Matter of Gross v Perales, 72 NY2d 231, 236).
We have considered Helgason's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.