It is well established that where, as here, an administrative agency's determination has a rational basis, and is supported by evidence in the record, it must be affirmed (see e.g. Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222, 230). Contrary to the findings of Supreme Court, we find that the determination of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) to process the tenant's "rent overcharge complaint" as a Fair Market Rent Appeal and to direct the owner to refund the excess rent was rationally based upon the record and in accordance with the applicable law, and thus not subject to judicial disturbance (see Matter of Spohnheimer v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 277 A.D.2d 58; Matter of Jemrock Realty Co. v. State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 169 A.D.2d 679, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 852; Matter of McKenzie v. Mirabal, 155 A.D.2d 194).
It is undisputed that the owner prior to petitioner failed to furnish the appropriate and requisite notices to the tenant notifying him of the change of status of the subject apartment from rent-controlled to rent-stabilized and of his right to file a Fair Market Rent Appeal, which challenges the assessed rent following decontrol. Tenant's handwritten notation in his initial complaint that he believed the prior long-term tenant was a rent-controlled tenant was sufficient notice to the owner that the complaint was, in effect, a Fair Market Rent Appeal. Furthermore, the DHCR acted rationally in imposing a rent overcharge penalty upon petitioner, the present owner of the subject apartment building, since the current owner is responsible for his predecessor's overcharges and penalties under the Rent Stabilization Law (see Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2526.1 [f][2]; see also Fullan v. 142 East 27th Street Assocs., 282 A.D.2d 275, lv denied 97 N.Y.2d 638). Finally, petitioner's contention that it suffered actual prejudice as a result of DHCR's delay in converting the tenant's initial complaint into a Fair Market Rent Appeal is unavailing (see Matter of Louis Harris Associates, Inc. v. DeLeon, 84 N.Y.2d 698, 702; Matter of Powers Associates, Inc. v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 229 A.D.2d 349, 351, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 808).
We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
All concur except Ellerin, J. who dissents and would affirm for the reasons stated by Schlesinger, J.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.