Respondent's determination was supported by substantial evidence (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 180-182). It was up to the agency to weigh the evidence and resolve issues of credibility (see e.g. Matter of Stork Rest., Inc. v. Boland, 282 N.Y. 256). Petitioners failed to show, by convincing evidence, that the conditions of harassment which led to the September 1995 order no longer existed (Matter of Meko Holding, Inc. v. Joy, 107 A.D.2d 278, 282, appeal dismissed 65 N.Y.2d 923).
Verbal abuse and intimidation can constitute harassment (see Matter of Hartman v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 158 A.D.2d 330, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 705; Matter of Belnord Holding Corp. v. Joy, 73 A.D.2d 549, affd 52 N.Y.2d 945) and petitioner John Mauro had no constitutional right to abuse his tenants verbally (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 571-572).
Contrary to petitioners' contention, the harassment finding relating to apartment 4R was not based solely on verbal abuse of Richard Ramos. Calli Lerner, the tenant of record, testified that Mr. Mauro "would . . . call us [i.e., both Lerner and Ramos] liars and con artists." Moreover, since Ramos was Lerner's boyfriend and roommate, it was reasonable to conclude that Mr. Mauro's attacks on Ramos would disturb the peace and repose of the tenant of record (Rent Stabilization Code § 2525.5 [9 NYCRR § 2525.5]).
DHCR was entitled to consider petitioners' application in conjunction with charges raised by the Enforcement Unit (Rent Eviction Regulations § 2207.2 [9 NYCRR § 2207.2]; § 2207.5 [9 NYCRR § 2207.5]; § 2207.6 [9 NYCRR § 2207.6]; Rent Stabilization Law § 26-516[f] [Administrative Code of the City of N.Y. § 26 — 516(f)]; Rent Stabilization Code § 2526.4 and § 2527.5 [9 NYCRR § 2526.4 and § 2527.5]). We reject petitioners' due process claim; they were given detailed notice of the charges against them in the Notice of Hearing.
To the extent petitioners assert a Takings Clause claim, it is unavailing (see Pennell v. City of San Jose, 485 U.S. 1, 12 n 6).
Finally, the record provides no support for petitioners' allegation that DHCR was biased against them.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.