Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The Supreme Court properly found that the determination of the respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (hereinafter the DHCR) had a rational basis and should not be disturbed (see, Matter of Mid-State Mgt. Corp. v. New York City Conciliation Appeals Bd., 112 A.D.2d 72, affd 66 N.Y.2d 1032). Further, the petitioner was not denied due process of law by the DHCR's failure to conduct an evidentiary hearing (see, Matter of Rubin v. Eimicke, 150 A.D.2d 697; Seril v. Division of Hous. Community Renewal, 163 A.D.2d 131). Sullivan, J.P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.