The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 were read on this motion to/for ARTICLE 78 (BODY OR OFFICER). DECISION ORDER ON MOTION Upon the foregoing documents, it is ORDERED that the petition for relief, pursuant to CPLR Article 78, of petitioner 113-117 Realty LLC (motion sequence number 001) is denied and this proceeding is dismissed; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is to enter judgment accordingly; and it is further ORDERED that the counsel for petitioner shall serve a copy of this Order with Notice of Entry within twenty (20) days of entry on counsel for all parties. CASE DIPOSED MEMORANDUM DECISION In this Article 78 proceeding, petitioner 113-117 Realty LLC (landlord) seeks a judgment to overturn an order of the respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) as arbitrary and capricious (motion sequence number 001). For the following reasons, the petition is denied and this proceeding is dismissed. BACKGROUND Landlord is the owner of a residential, rent-stabilized apartment building located at 546 West 146th Street in the County, City and State of New York (the building). See verified petition, 1. Co-respondent Nancy Williams (Williams) is the tenant of apartment 55 in the building. Id., 3. The DHCR is the New York State agency charged with overseeing rent-stabilized housing accommodations located inside of New York City. Id., 2. On March 12, 2018, Williams commenced an administrative “diminution of services” proceeding against landlord before the DHCR, in which she alleges that landlord had failed to maintain certain services or to perform certain renovation/repair work. See verified petition, exhibit B. The DHCR inspected apartment 55 on September 18, 2018, and thereafter a DHCR rent administrator issued Williams a rent reduction order against landlord on October 18, 2018 that found that the inspection had yielded evidence of decreased services in apartment 55 (the RA’s order). Id., exhibit H. Landlord then filed a petition for administrative review (PAR) of the RA’s order, and the DHCR deputy commissioner’s office issued its decision on November 22, 2019 that upheld the RA’s order and dismissed the PAR (the PAR order). Id., exhibit J. The relevant portion of the PAR order found as follows: “[Williams] commenced the proceeding below on March 12, 2018, alleging a diminution in a plethora of services in the subject apartment. [Landlord] was served with [Williams]‘s complaint on March 15, 2018. On September 18, 2018, a [DHCR] inspection conducted in the subject apartment confirmed a decrease in various services. Thus, the [RA] granted [Williams] a rent reduction and directed the restoration of services. “At the outset, the [DHCR] Commissioner notes that [landlord]‘s contention that [Williams] and/or her guests damaged the subject apartment was not substantiated. Even though [landlord] alleged that in the past, the prior owner had to renovate the subject apartment due to [Williams] purportedly damaging the subject apartment, the Commissioner notes that that is insufficient to substantiate [landlord]‘s present claim. “The Commissioner notes that the essence of adjudicating [a tenant's] services complaint, by the DHCR, is to ensure that services are maintained in rent regulated apartments. Factually confirmed in the instant case, through the [DHCR]‘s inspection, the evidence indicates that various services were not maintained. Thus, the Commissioner finds that the [RA] correctly found services not maintained and properly issued a rent reduction order. Based on the foregoing, the Commissioner finds that there is no basis to disturb the [RA]‘s determination.” Id., exhibit J. Landlord’s Article 78 petition also contains the above allegation that Williams has a history of damaging apartment 55, and notes that it is currently prosecuting a residential “nuisance holdover” petition against her in the Civil Court of the City of New York, Housing Part, under Index No L&T 83589/17 to evict her on that ground (the Housing Court proceeding). See verified petition,
6-7. Landlord commenced this Article 78 proceeding to vacate the PAR order on January 21, 2020. See verified petition. After the Covid-19 national pandemic had caused the court to suspend its operations for several months, the DHCR filed an answer on July 20, 2020. See verified answer. At this time, the matter is fully submitted and ready for disposition (motion sequence number 001). DISCUSSION The court’s role in an Article 78 proceeding is to determine, upon the facts before the administrative agency, whether the determination had a rational basis in the record or was arbitrary and capricious. See Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222 (1974); Matter of E.G.A. Assoc. v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 232 AD2d 302 (1st Dept 1996). A determination will only be found arbitrary and capricious if it is “without sound basis in reason, and in disregard of the facts.” See Matter of Century Operating Corp. v. Popolizio, 60 NY2d 483, 488 (1983), citing Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d at 231. However, if there is a rational basis for the administrative determination, there can be no judicial interference. Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d at 231-232. Here, landlord argues that the PAR order was an arbitrary and capricious ruling because it was “not supported by substantial evidence,” and because “the courts are not to serve as the [DHCR]‘s rubber stamp.” See verified petition,
