DHCR's determination of petitioner's claim was in accordance with the express provisions of Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 (Administrative Code of City of NY) § 26-510 (d) and the applicable Rent Guidelines Orders (see, Seales v. Mirabal, 152 A.D.2d 672, 674). Contrary to petitioners' urgings based upon D'Emilia v. Conciliation Appeals Bd. (index No. 25842/83, Mar. 1985, Elliott Wilk, J.), neither the statute nor the orders condition vacancy increases on whether the prior tenant maintained occupancy until the termination of his lease. Inasmuch as an administrative agency's reasonable, rational interpretation and application of the statutes and regulations under which it functions is entitled to judicial deference (Ansonia Residents Assn. v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 75 N.Y.2d 206, 213; Cale Dev. v. Conciliation Appeals Bd., 94 A.D.2d 229, 232, affd 61 N.Y.2d 976), we find that the IAS Court erred in ordering the remand.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rosenberger, Williams and Tom, JJ.