Even if the parties' stipulation did require the Division of Housing and Community Renewal to consider additional evidence in determining the remitted petition for administrative review, no violation of the stipulation occurred since respondent did in fact consider such evidence. Substantively, we agree with Supreme Court that the administrative record supports, and a rational basis exists, for respondent's findings that petitioner failed to produce credible evidence to establish the existence of improvements justifying a rent increase and, thus, did not rebut the presumption that the subject overcharge was willful, warranting imposition of treble damages ( see, Matter of Herman v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 239 A.D.2d 305, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 807). We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Williams and Wallach, JJ.