Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The respondent's determination is supported by a rational basis in the record and is in accord with applicable law (see, 9 NYCRR 2202.16 [a]; 2200.3 [b]; Matter of Stratford Leasing Corp. v. Gabel, 17 A.D.2d 332, affd 13 N.Y.2d 607). Accordingly, the determination was properly confirmed (see, Matter of Howard v Wyman, 28 N.Y.2d 434; Matter of Colton v. Berman, 21 N.Y.2d 322). Furthermore, under the circumstances presented, the petitioner was not denied any administrative due process rights because he was not notified of the respondent's inspection of the subject premises (see, Matter of Rubin v. Eimicke, 150 A.D.2d 697; Matter of Cohen v. State of New York Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 131 A.D.2d 808; Matter of Concerned Citizens against Crossgates v Flacke, 89 A.D.2d 759, affd 58 N.Y.2d 919). In this regard we note that the petitioner does not dispute the inspector's finding upon which the determination was based, that tar was oozing up from the complaining tenant's shower drain.
We have reviewed the petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P.J., Spatt, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.