"[T]he construction given statutes and regulations by the agency responsible for their administration will, if not irrational or unreasonable, be upheld" (Matter of Johnson v Joy, 48 N.Y.2d 689, 691). In this case the Loft Board determination that petitioner's unit did not qualify for coverage pursuant to Multiple Dwelling Law § 281 (4) was not arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion inasmuch as the statute, on its face, requires a showing that the unit in question was occupied for residential use on April 1, 1980 (see, Laermer v New York City Loft Bd., 184 A.D.2d 339, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 701). While the Loft Board now acknowledges that petitioner is not precluded from seeking a special permit pursuant to Zoning Resolution § 74-782 in order to qualify under Multiple Dwelling Law § 281 (3), it had no statutory authority to grant petitioner's application unless and until such permit had been obtained from the appropriate municipal authority (cf., Matter of Vlachos v New York City Loft Bd., 118 A.D.2d 378, 382). The petition, therefore, was properly dismissed.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ross, Asch, Rubin and Tom, JJ.