Opinion
June 6, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.).
Respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal properly held that the tenants' Fair Market Rent Appeal was timely filed, since petitioner failed to establish that it properly served the tenants with the required initial legal regulated rent notice (Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 26-513 [b] [1]; [d]; see, Matter of McKenzie v. Mirabal, 155 A.D.2d 194). Petitioner failed to serve the notice by certified mail ( see, Matter of Alcoma Corp. v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 79 N.Y.2d 834, affg 170 A.D.2d 324), and, based upon the record, the Rent Administrator properly found that petitioner also failed to prove personal service ( see, M.H.A. Realty Corp. v. Cole, 163 Misc.2d 300). Petitioner's due process rights were not violated by failure to hold an evidentiary hearing as it was afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard based upon its submissions ( see, Matter of Rubin v. Eimicke, 150 A.D.2d 697, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 704).
Respondent also did not abuse its discretion in re-opening the proceeding based on an irregularity in the copy of the notice submitted ( see, Rent Stabilization Code [9 N.Y.CRR] § 2527.8; Matter of Cupo v. McGoldrick, 278 App. Div. 108, 112). Respondent properly afforded the parties the opportunity to be heard prior to its issuance of the superseding order. Nor did respondent violate due process in failing to provide petitioner with an additional opportunity to submit comparable rent data as petitioner had received adequate notice of such requirement and failed to respond.
Since there was a rational basis for the determination here, it should not be disturbed ( see, Matter of Salvati v. Eimicke, 72 N.Y.2d 784, 791).
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Rosenberger, Ross and Tom, JJ.