Majority
The ambiguities in the first notice of violation were clarified at the first session of the hearing and petitioner had the opportunity to present a defense at the second session. Substantial evidence, including the issuing officer’s affirmed statements in the notice of violation, supports the finding that petitioner’s use of the cellar for a laundry room, workshop, and recreation area was unauthorized since such uses were not noted in the most recent certificate of occupancy (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176 , 180-181 [1978]).
Furthermore, petitioner did not dispute the presence of a laundry room in the cellar, and its claim that the laundry room was a permitted accessory use of the premises was not raised before the administrative agency and is, thus, unpreserved (see Matter of Seitelman v Lavine, 36 NY2d 165 , 170 [1975]).
We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Andrias and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
Cases cited
- 300 Gramatan Avenue Associates v. State Division of Human Rights 45 NY2d 176 at 180-181 p. 496
- Seitelman v. Lavine 36 NY2d 165 at 170 p. 496