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

Various courts have consistently upheld DHCR determinations that substantial renovations to an apartment, which did *1051not substantially change its perimeter or dimensions, did not permit an owner to charge a first stabilization rent (see Matter of Asen Bros. & Brook v Leventhal, 54 NY2d 839, 840 [1981] [“Although petitioner expended in excess of $100,000 on improvements, there was evidence to support the commission’s determination that no structural changes were made and that the 15-apartment complex remained unchanged”]; Matter of I.G. Second Generation Partners v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 284 AD2d 149 [2001] [addition of a glass enclosure to a terrace that was already allocated to the subject apartment did not entitle the owner to a first stabilization rent]; Matter of 300 W. 49th St. Assoc. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, Off. of Rent Admin., 212 AD2d at 253; Roker Realty Corp. v Gross, 163 Misc 2d 766, 767-768 [App Term, 1st Dept 1995]; see also Matter of 1781 Riverside v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 287 AD2d 255, 256 [2001]; Matter of Myers v D’Agosta, 202 AD2d 223, 224 [1994]). A first stabilization rent is disallowed even where renovations result in an increase in dwelling space (see Matter of 300 W. 49th St. Assoc. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, Off. of Rent Admin., 212 AD2d at 253 [first stabilization rent properly disallowed where exterior perimeter of the apartment did not change, although due to the configuration of the apartment, interior renovations increased the actual square footage of the space]; Roker Realty Corp. v Gross, 163 Misc 2d at 767-768 [owner not entitled to a first stabilization rent in light of the addition of a closet from an adjacent apartment, which increased the size of the subject apartment by 27 square feet]).