DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
We reject the appellant's contention that two gaps in the brick wall around the entrance to the subject rent-regulated apartment building, which are six square feet and five square feet, respectively, were de minimis conditions and therefore provided no rational basis for the determination by the respondent, New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (hereinafter the DHCR). The appellant was required to repair and maintain the public areas of the subject building, and failed to do so. It is for the DHCR to determine what constitutes a required service and whether that service has been maintained, and its determination here is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Kingswood Mgt. Corp. v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 168 A.D.2d 450 ; Matter of Rubin v. Eimicke, 150 A.D.2d 697 ). In addition, there is no merit to the appellant's contention that the rent reduction was excessive (see, Matter of Hyde Park Assocs. v. Higgins, 191 A.D.2d 440 ).
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.