Majority
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
A rational basis exists for the Division of Housing and Community Renewal’s determination that petitioners failed to maintain adequate janitorial services warranting a rent reduction (see Matter of Gilman v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 99 NY2d 144 , 149 [2002]). The determination, implicitly rejecting petitioners’ claim that the violation was de minimis, is rationally based on the inspector’s observations of debris in the compactor rooms, which confirmed the tenants’ sworn complaint of filthy compactor rooms that were not maintained. DHCR’s determination that petitioners reduced services by failing to maintain the compactor rooms was not irrational and must be sustained (see Matter of KSLM-Columbus Apts., Inc. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Re
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo and Jones concur; Judges Read, Smith and Pigott dissent and vote to reverse for the reasons stated in the dissenting memorandum by Justice George D. Marlow at the Appellate Division ( 40 AD3d 516 , 517-520 [2007]).
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Cases cited
- Gilman v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal 99 NY2d 144 at 149 p. 983
- KSLM-Columbus Apartments, Inc. v. New York State Division of Housing 5 NY3d 303 at 312 p. 984
- Mid-State Management Corp. v. New York City Conciliation & Appeals Board 112 AD2d 72 at 75-76 p. 984
- Mid-State Management Corp. v. New York City Conciliation & Appeals Board 66 NY2d 1032 p. 984
- 333 East 49th Associates v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, Office of Rent Administration 40 AD3d 516 at 517-520 p. 984