adjustments" (NY St Div of Hous & Community Renewal Operational Bulletin 95-2
at 4 [Dec. 15, 1995]; see Matter of Devlin v New York State Div. of Hous. &
Community Renewal, 309 AD2d at 194; Matter of 300 W. 49th St. Assoc. v New
York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, Off. of Rent Admin., 212
AD2d at 253). The rationale for the policy has been explained as follows: "If the rental
history of a stabilized apartment is no longer applicable due to the creation of a new unit
with completely different perimeter walls, there would be no rational method which
DHCR could utilize to calculate the legal rent since the stabilized rent is based upon a
continuous chain of rental history" (Matter of 300 W. 49th St. Assoc. v New York
State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, Off. of Rent Admin., 212 AD2d at
253).
Various courts have consistently upheld DHCR determinations that substantial
renovations to an apartment, which did not 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