Respondent Division's determination that the proof adduced was sufficient to rebut the presumption that intervenor-respondent landlord had willfully overcharged petitioner has a rational basis (see, Matter of Round Hill Mgt. Co. v. Higgins, 177 A.D.2d 256), namely a reasonable belief by the landlord that substantial renovations to the apartment permitted it to charge a free market first rent, a misconception that was widespread and not clarified until 1987, when the Division issued a ruling that renovations did not qualify an apartment for a free market first rent unless the boundary walls of the apartment were moved (Matter of Windsor Plaza Co. v. New York State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 144 A.D.2d 1046, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 605 [confirming Matter of Windsor Plaza Co., Off of Rent Admin docket No. ARL 04966-L]).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Kupferman, Asch, Williams and Tom, JJ.