It was not irrational for respondent DHCR to conclude that a complaint by petitioner's tenants, that brick and plaster were falling into the building's elevator, was substantiated by an inspection of the subject premises by the Department of Buildings (DOB) resulting in DOB's issuance of a violation for shifting bricks and of a consequent "cease use" directive respecting the building's elevator. This being the case, the DOB violation notice, properly relied upon by DHCR, provided a rational basis for the challenged rent reduction order and respondent DHCR's affirmance. In addition, DHCR's restoration of rents in the subject building effective June 1, 1998, rather than on an earlier date suggested by the landlord, was not arbitrary. Although petitioner claims that rents had been ordered restored as of an earlier date, it has not included in the record a copy of the restoration order upon which it purports to rely. Accordingly, inasmuch as petitioner has adduced no ground upon which we might find respondent's determination to have been arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion, the petition was properly denied (see, Matter of Barklee Realty Co. v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 159 A.D.2d 416, appeal dismissed 76 N.Y.2d 844).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.