Appeal from an order of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Scott Fairgrieve, J.), entered March 16, 2007. The order denied tenant's motion to open his default in a nonpayment summary proceeding.

Order affirmed without costs.

After landlord and tenant settled a prior nonpayment summary proceeding by stipulating to the amount of the rent due for the subject rent-stabilized premises, tenant
sought administrative review of the maximum legal rent before the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), which determined that landlord was entitled to demand the rent to which tenant stipulated. After tenant's administrative appeal from DHCR's ruling proved unsuccessful, tenant moved in the District Court, Nassau County to vacate the stipulation on the grounds alleged before DHCR, which motion was denied. Tenant did not appeal from the District Court determination but nevertheless continued to pay rent at the preferential rate provided in an expired lease and refused to execute a renewal lease in which landlord demanded [*2]the maximum legal rent. Landlord thereupon commenced this nonpayment summary proceeding, and, upon tenant's failure to appear on the return date, the court found tenant in default. Tenant sought unsuccessfully to open the default, the court below ruling, inter alia, that tenant failed to establish a meritorious defense to the proceeding. Tenant appeals, and we affirm.

As it is well settled that administrative determinations may not be collaterally attacked in a subsequent court proceeding, DHCR's determination that the rent provided in the parties' lease was a legal rent for this rent-stabilized premises must be given conclusive effect (Berkeley Realty, LLC v Hicks, 7 Misc 3d 130[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50540[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2005]; see also 113 Ave. D, LLC v Green, 17 Misc 3d 127[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51900[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2007]; Licorish v Nor-Win Realty Corp., 13 Misc 3d 130[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 51839[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2006]; Kirwan v Edgewater Park Owners Coop., 2002 NY Slip Op 50037[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2002]; Parisi v Hines, 131 Misc 2d 582 [Civ Ct, NY County 1986], affd 134 Misc 2d 20 [App Term, 1st Dept 1986], affd without opn 134 AD2d 972 [1987]). When that determination was upheld on appeal, tenant's remedy was to challenge the determination in an article 78 proceeding (London Terrace Gardens v Grabina, 3 Misc 3d 128[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50346[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2004]; Dara Realty Assoc. v Schachter, 194 Misc 2d 29, 30 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2002]), which he failed to do. Thus, the District Court properly concluded that tenant failed to establish a meritorious defense.

McCabe, J.P., Tanenbaum and Scheinkman, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: April 3, 2008