ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the petitioner's contentions, the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal could reasonably and rationally determine that the District Rent Administrator's decision to allow the petitioner to eliminate the swimming pool on its premises, a required service under the Rent Stabilization Code, was incorrect based upon the petitioner's failure to provide any evidence that pool usage had dropped, that the cost of operating the pool had increased substantially from that of prior years, or that there were any changes in circumstances making continuation of the pool unfeasible (see Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] §§ 2520.6[r], 2522.4[d][3]; Matter of 1781 Riverside v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 287 A.D.2d 255; Matter of West Vil. Assocs. v. Division of Hous. Community Renewal, 277 A.D.2d 111; Matter of Powers Assocs. v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 229 A.D.2d 349; Matter of Parcel 242 Realty v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 215 A.D.2d 132).
SANTUCCI, J.P., FRIEDMANN, MASTRO and RIVERA, JJ., concur.
Comments