Petitioner's claims challenging the legality of the Commission's procedures are improperly raised for the first time on appeal ( see Sean M. v. City of New York, 20 AD3d 146, 149-150 ), and also collaterally estopped by the findings made in Matter of Landmark West! v. Burden (3 Misc 3d 1102[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50331[U] [2004], affd 15 AD3d 308, 309, lv denied 5 NY3d 713) that, inter alia, the Commission was not obligated to hold a public hearing before deciding not to calendar a request for the property's designation as a landmark. Insofar as petitioner's application is based on NY City Charter § 1046 (c), which prohibits ex parte communications between parties and a hearing officer in an "adjudication," i.e., "a proceeding in which the legal rights, duties or privileges of named parties are required by law to be determined by an agency on a record and after an opportunity for a hearing" (NY City Charter § 1041), the application was properly denied on the ground that landmark designations are administrative, not adjudicative, in nature ( see Matter of Teachers Ins. Annuity Assn. of Am. v. City of New York, 82 NY2d 35, 41; Matter of Doro's Rest. v. City of New York, 179 AD2d 406, 407), and therefore not subject to section 1046. Petitioner's conspiracy and 42 USC § 1983 claims lack allegations sufficient to show a scheme to undermine its First Amendment right to petition the Commission. We have considered and rejected petitioner's other arguments. [ See 9 Misc 3d 1102(A), 2005 NY Slip Op 51374(U) (2005).]