Daniels v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Daniels v. New York City Housing Authority

66 A.D.2d 579, 888 N.Y.S.2d 11

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

DecidedOctober 27, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 66 A.D.2d 579 (Daniels v. New York City Housing Authority) 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

Daniels v. New York City Housing Authority, 66 A.D.2d 579, 888 N.Y.S.2d 11 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter B. Tolub, J.), entered August 19, 2008, which denied the petition to annul respondent’s determination, dated April 9, 2008, denying petitioner’s application to succeed to the tenancy of her deceased mother as a remaining family member, confirmed the determination, and dismissed the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The determination that petitioner was not a remaining family member and therefore not entitled to succession rights to the subject apartment was not arbitrary and capricious (CFLR 7803 [580]*580[3]). Petitioner had not resided in the apartment with her mother, with respondent’s written permission, continuously for one year before her mother’s death (see Matter of Pelaez v New York City Hous. Auth., 56 AD3d 325 [2008]; Matter of Torres v New York City Hous. Auth., 40 AD3d 328 [2007]). Indeed, her application for permission to rejoin the household was not submitted until approximately six months before her mother’s death.

The notice requirement is not a rule or regulation but a provision of the Housing Authority’s remaining-family-member policy, and, in any event, petitioner is not a tenant of record. Nor has petitioner demonstrated any necessity for a further hearing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz, Renwick and Richter, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter B. Tolub, J.), entered August 19, 2008, which denied the petition to annul respondent’s determination, dated April 9, 2008, denying petitioner’s application to succeed to the tenancy of her deceased mother as a remaining family member, confirmed the determination, and dismissed the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The determination that petitioner was not a remaining family member and therefore not entitled to succession rights to the subject apartment was not arbitrary and capricious (CFLR 7803 [580]*580[3]). Petitioner had not resided in the apartment with her mother, with respondent’s written permission, continuously for one year before her mother’s death (see Matter of Pelaez v New York City Hous. Auth., 56 AD3d 325 [2008]; Matter of Torres v New York City Hous. Auth., 40 AD3d 328 [2007]). Indeed, her application for permission to rejoin the household was not submitted until approximately six months before her mother’s death.

The notice requirement is not a rule or regulation but a provision of the Housing Authority’s remaining-family-member policy, and, in any event, petitioner is not a tenant of record. Nor has petitioner demonstrated any necessity for a further hearing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz, Renwick and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 A.D.2d 579, 888 N.Y.S.2d 11, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniels-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack