Collazo v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Collazo v. New York City Housing Authority

93 A.D.3d 475, 939 N.Y.S.2d 847

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 13, 2012·Published

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered December 30, 2010, inter alia, denying the petition to annul respondent’s determination, dated June 17, 2009, which denied petitioner succession rights as a remaining family member to his deceased mother’s apartment, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s determination that petitioner does not qualify as a remaining family member because he never obtained respondent’s written permission to return to residence in his mother’s apartment is based upon a fair interpretation of respondent’s rules and regulations and is not arbitrary and capricious (see e.g. Matter of Johnson v New York City Hous. Auth., 50 AD3d 438 [2008]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Saxe, J.P., Sweeny, Freedman [476] and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ. [Prior Case History: 30 Misc 3d 1202(A), 2010 NY Slip Op 52242(U).]

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered December 30, 2010, inter alia, denying the petition to annul respondent’s determination, dated June 17, 2009, which denied petitioner succession rights as a remaining family member to his deceased mother’s apartment, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s determination that petitioner does not qualify as a remaining family member because he never obtained respondent’s written permission to return to residence in his mother’s apartment is based upon a fair interpretation of respondent’s rules and regulations and is not arbitrary and capricious (see e.g. Matter of Johnson v New York City Hous. Auth., 50 AD3d 438 [2008]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Saxe, J.P., Sweeny, Freedman [476] and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ. [Prior Case History: 30 Misc 3d 1202(A), 2010 NY Slip Op 52242(U).]

Collazo v. New York City Housing Authority, 93 A.D.3d 475, 939 N.Y.S.2d 847 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

93 A.D.3d 475 (Collazo v. New York City Housing Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related