Tenant appeals from an order of the Civil Court, New York County, dated February 10, 2003 (Maria Milin, J.) which, upon reargument, granted landlord's motion to strike tenant's affirmative defenses and counterclaim in a nonpayment summary proceeding.

PER CURIAM:

Order dated February 10, 2003 (Maria Milin, J.) affirmed, with $10 costs.

As Civil Court correctly held on reargument, the DHCR determination that the [*2]apartment premises is not subject to rent stabilization because it became vacant after June 1997 with a legal regulated rent of $2,000 or more has preclusive effect and cannot be collaterally attacked in landlord's nonpayment proceeding (see, Parisi v Hines, 131 Misc 2d 582). DHCR, which rendered its orders after an inspection of the premises, found that the apartment improvements reflected on landlord's invoices had been made and allowed expenditures of $32,000. To the extent tenant contests the reasonableness of the improvement costs, her remedy was to timely challenge the agency's final determination in an Article 78 proceeding (see, Matter of Hanjorgiris v Lynch, 298 AD2d 251). Accordingly, tenant's defenses and counterclaim founded upon her assertion that the legal rent was below $2,000 were properly dismissed.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.