Although petitioner landlord in the present proceeding purports to challenge only the terms upon which its entitlement to collect full rent from its rent stabilized and rent controlled tenants was restored, petitioner, in relying upon a Department of Buildings inspection conducted prior to the underlying rent reduction order, has in fact mounted an impermissible collateral challenge to the validity of that order, previously litigated by petitioner fully and conclusively, albeit unsuccessfully, in Matter of Jemrock Realty Co. v. Anderson ( 228 A.D.2d 355, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 804) ( see, Matter of Sea New Rochelle Assocs. v. Division of Hous. Community Renewal, 140 A.D.2d 610). To the extent that petitioner merely challenges, as arbitrary and capricious, the effective dates of the rent restoration, its challenge is without merit since the effective dates of the subject rent restoration were plainly set in accordance with DHCR's governing regulations.
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Wallach, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.