Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP, New York (Patrick J. Kilduff of counsel), for petitioner.

James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York� (Elizabeth I. Freedman of counsel), for respondents.

Determination of the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH), dated December 14, 2017, to the extent it affirmed a hearing officer's decision, dated May 31, 2017, sustaining two violations of New York City Zoning Resolution § 32-63, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Andrew Borrok, J.], entered Oct. 10, 2018), dismissed, without costs. Determination of OATH, dated December 12, 2018, to the extent it affirmed a hearing officer's superseding decision, dated July 5, 2018, sustaining two additional violations of New York City Zoning Resolution § 32-63, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Arthur F. Engoron, J.], entered Sept. 20, 2019), dismissed, without costs.

OATH's determinations that petitioner violated Zoning Resolution § 32-63 by displaying two advertising signs in a district where such signs are prohibited are supported by substantial evidence in the record (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180-182 [1978]). Petitioner failed to establish that the display of the two signs was a legal nonconforming use that had existed at the time of the enactment of the relevant provisions and continued thereafter, uninterrupted except for a period of up to two years (see NY City Zoning Resolution §§ 12-10, 42-55, 52-11, 52-61). The 1970s permit relied upon by petitioner was for a single sign, not two. OATH rationally concluded that petitioner failed to meet its burden of establishing continuous use, in light of the significant gap in time for which petitioner presented no documentary evidence that the two advertising signs were displayed continuously. We perceive no basis for disturbing OATH's finding, in its second proceeding, that the affidavit submitted by petitioner, which was contradicted by other evidence in the record and contained uncorroborated statements, was insufficient to establish continuous use. Concur—Kern, J.P., Oing, Singh, Moulton, JJ.