Belarrem v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Belarrem v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

89 A.D.3d 468, 931 N.Y.2d 878

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 3, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 89 A.D.3d 468 (Belarrem v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Belarrem v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 89 A.D.3d 468, 931 N.Y.2d 878 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Petitioner failed to establish that she lived in the subject apartment with her parents for at least two years before their deaths (see 9 NYCRR 1727-8.2 [a] [1]). To the contrary, the evidence showed that petitioner’s parents lived in an apartment in another building during that time. Petitioner’s claim that the two nonadjacent apartments should have been considered a single primary residence is also unsupported, since there is no evidence that her parents maintained the subject apartment as an extension of their residence in the other building (see Sharp v Melendez, 139 AD2d 262 [1988], lv denied 73 NY2d 707 [1989]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P, Saxe, Acosta, DeGrasse and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Petitioner failed to establish that she lived in the subject apartment with her parents for at least two years before their deaths (see 9 NYCRR 1727-8.2 [a] [1]). To the contrary, the evidence showed that petitioner’s parents lived in an apartment in another building during that time. Petitioner’s claim that the two nonadjacent apartments should have been considered a single primary residence is also unsupported, since there is no evidence that her parents maintained the subject apartment as an extension of their residence in the other building (see Sharp v Melendez, 139 AD2d 262 [1988], lv denied 73 NY2d 707 [1989]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P, Saxe, Acosta, DeGrasse and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.3d 468, 931 N.Y.2d 878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/belarrem-v-new-york-state-division-of-housing-community-renewal-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack