In light of the support in the record for respondents' conclusion that the subject action is an aspect of "routine or continuing agency administration and management" ( 6 NYCRR 617.5 [c] [20]), and given that this Court has only a limited review function ( see, Matter of Acton v. Wallace, 112 A.D.2d 581, 583, affd 67 N.Y.2d 953), we agree with the IAS Court that the challenged administrative action has a rational basis and we should not interfere with it. We have considered petitioner's other arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Nardelli, Williams, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.