ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly determined that there was a rational basis to support the determinations of no probable cause made by the Division of Human Rights (hereinafter the DHR) (see, Executive Law — 298; CPLR 7803; Matter of Bazile v. Acinapura, 225 A.D.2d 764; Giles v. State Div. of Human Rights, 166 A.D.2d 779). The DHR has broad discretion to determine the method to be employed in investigating complaints (see, Matter of Bal v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 202 A.D.2d 236; Matter of Kushnir v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 114 A.D.2d 898), and its determinations are entitled to considerable deference due to its expertise in evaluating discrimination claims (see, Matter of Bruno v. Pembrook Management, Inc., 212 A.D.2d 314; Matter of Sidoti v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 212 A.D.2d 537).
Contrary to the petitioner's contentions, the DHR's vacatur of its initial determinations, the reopening of the investigation, and the subsequent determinations of no probable cause, were proper and authorized by law (see, Executive Law — 297; 9 NYCRR 465.8; see also, State Div. of Human Rights v. Genesee Hosp., 50 N.Y.2d 113). The additional investigation was comprehensive, and the petitioner was afforded ample opportunity to present her own evidence to rebut the showing by the respondents BPC Corporation and Washington Realty Corporation of their legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons for refusing to lease a larger apartment to her (see, Matter of Miller Brewing Co. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 66 N.Y.2d 937; Matter of Bazile v. Acinapura, supra).
KRAUSMAN, J.P., McGINITY, SCHMIDT and ADAMS, JJ., concur.