December 2009. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled so much of the
determination dated January 17, 2013, as recalculated the legal regulated rent for the
subject apartment to be $1,200 per month, and remitted the matter to the DHCR for a
new calculation of the legal regulated rent pursuant to Rent Stabilization Code
§ 2522.4 (a) (4), and denied the counterclaim.
"[I]n a CPLR article 78 proceeding to review a determination of the DHCR, the court
is limited to . . . the question of whether its determination was arbitrary and
capricious and without a rational basis" (Matter of 36-08 Queens Realty v New York
State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 222 AD2d 440, 441 [1995]; see Matter of Acevedo v New York
State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 67 AD3d 785 [2009]). In
reviewing a determination of the DHCR, "[t]he court may not substitute its judgment for
that of the DHCR" (Matter of 85 E. Parkway Corp. v New York State Div. of Hous.
& Community Renewal, 297 AD2d 675, 676 [2002]). "The DHCR's
interpretation of the statutes and regulations it administers, if reasonable, must be
upheld" (id. at 676; see
Matter of Kripalani v State of N.Y. Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 126
AD3d 904 [2d Dept 2015]).
The determination of the Deputy Commissioner of the DHCR that the Marrones
were not entitled to collect a "first stabilization rent" on the petitioner's apartment had a
rational basis in the record and was not arbitrary and capricious (Matter of 300 W.
49th St. Assoc. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, Off. of
Rent Admin., 212 AD2d 250, 252 [1995]; see Roker Realty Corp. v Gross,
163 Misc 2d 766 [1995]; cf. Matter of Devlin v New York State Div. of Hous. &
Community Renewal, 309 AD2d 191 [2003]). A first stabilization rent is "an