Mr. Lippa's final decision and certificate of eviction addressed what Mr Clark regards as Mr. Lippa's failure to acknowledge prevalent claims. Mr. Lippa referred to the reasons outlined in his July 21, 2006 decision, noting that he did not credit the petitioner's claims based on warranty of habitability because "Mr. Clark was in housing court on two occasions, and was not granted an abatement of the rent on either, and [because] Mr. Clark did not mention noise or the misconduct of others as problems when he wrote the housing company regarding conditions in his apartment in January 2004." Further, he notes that taken with Mr. Clark's conflicting testimony at the November 9, 2006 proceeding, "the lack of credibility color[ed] the reliability and legitimacy of Mr. Clark's testimony regarding noise."
An evaluation as to whether a determination is "arbitrary and capricious, an error of law, or an abuse of discretion is the standard of review for an administrative hearing, in which a mandamus for review is sought." (See CPLR § 7803). "The courts cannot interfere" and a decision will not be arbitrary and capricious "unless there is no rational basis for the exercise of discretion" (See Pell v. Board of Ed. Of Union Free School Dist. No 1 of Towns of Scarsdale and Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 231 (NY 1974). "Arbitrary action is without sound basis in reason and is generally taken without regard to the facts. (See Pell, 34 NY2d at 231).