DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the landlord's contention, the determination of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (hereinafter the DHCR) to award the tenant treble damages for rent overcharges was not arbitrary and capricious, and had a rational basis ( see Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222; Matter of 47-40 41st Realty Corp. v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 225 A.D.2d 547; Matter of Ista Mgt. v. State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 161 A.D.2d 424, 426; Matter of Drizin v. Commissioner of Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 140 A.D.2d 605, 606).
Further, while New York City Administrative Code § 26-516(a)(2) precludes examination of the rent history of an apartment prior to the four-year period preceding the filing of a rent overcharge complaint ( see Matter of Silver v. Lynch, 283 A.D.2d 213, 214; Matter of Pechock v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 253 A.D.2d 655; Zafra v. Pilkes, 245 A.D.2d 218), where a duty imposed prior to a limitations period is a continuing one, the statute of limitations is not a defense to actions based on breaches of that duty occurring within the limitations period ( see Matter of Grossman v. Rankin, 43 N.Y.2d 493, 506; Matter of Policemen's Benevolent Assn. of Vil. of Spring Val. v. Goldin, 266 A.D.2d 294; Ballin v. Ballin, 204 A.D.2d 1078). Thus, the DHCR properly considered the rent reduction order issued prior to the four-year limitations period, but still in effect at the time of the overcharge complaint, since it imposed a continuing obligation on the landlord to reduce rent ( see Crimmins v. Handler Co., 249 A.D.2d 89).
RITTER, J.P., S. MILLER, ADAMS and COZIER, JJ., concur.