DHCR's determination to close the tenant's harassment complaint was not an abuse its discretion (CPLR 7803;see, Dibbs v. Tornicasa, 98 CIV 2102, 1999 U.S. Dist LEXIS 19195, * 19-21 [SDNY]), there being ample justification therefor in the tenant's refusal to permit the landlord access to the premises and to otherwise cooperate with the plan DHCR had formulated to remedy the safety and habitability problems largely created by the legally required removal of the unlawful security gate. DHCR's determination of February 8, 2000 granting the landlord's application for a service and rent reduction is not before this Court, since petitioner, although twice granted leave to do so, failed to commence a proceeding properly challenging that determination, which, in any event, would now be time-barred.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.