Velasquez v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 130 A.D.3d 1045 (2015)

Citation: Velasquez v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 130 A.D.3d 1045 (2015)
Parent Document: Velasquez v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 130 A.D.3d 1045 (2015)
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Effective Date: 2015-07-29
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6194996/velasquez-v-new-york-state-divi... ↗

Full Text

1,326 chars

The irrationality of the Deputy Commissioner’s conclusion is underscored when the rationale for the first stabilization rent *1053policy is considered. As noted above, the reason for allowing an owner to charge a first stabilization rent is that where an apartment is so changed that it essentially ceases to exist, and a new unit is created, the rental history for the prior unit is no longer relevant. Here, critically, the rental history for the subject unit is for a two-bedroom apartment. Thus, as far as the rental history is concerned, although the additional rooms existed within the building, they were not part of the subject apartment. Accordingly, by unsealing the doorway and incorporating the two rooms into the subject apartment, the owners “significantly change [d] the perimeter and dimensions of [the] existing housing accommodation” (NY St Div of Hous & Community Renewal Operational Bulletin 95-2 at 4). Put another way, the owners “reconfigured] ” the two-bedroom apartment into a four-bedroom apartment, thereby “obliterating] the prior apartment’s particular identity” (Matter of Devlin v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 309 AD2d at 194; see Matter of Fernandez v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 3 AD3d at 368; 446-450 Realty Co., L.P. v Higbie, 30 Misc 3d at 72-73).

Other Sections in This Document (22)

Full Text