Davidson 1992 Associates v. Corbett

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Davidson 1992 Associates v. Corbett

190 Misc. 2d 813, 738 N.Y.S.2d 813, 2002 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 79

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 26, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 190 Misc. 2d 813 (Davidson 1992 Associates v. Corbett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Davidson 1992 Associates v. Corbett, 190 Misc. 2d 813, 738 N.Y.S.2d 813, 2002 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 79 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

[814]*814OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Appellant’s decedent was the tenant of record of a project-based section 8 housing unit. She commenced occupancy in the apartment as a home health care worker and was consistently identified on leases and annual income recertifications as a “live-in attendant.” While appellant claims to have enjoyed a personal relationship with the decedent, we agree that there is no basis for appellant to succeed to possession as a nontraditional family member under state law. Project-based subsidies remain with the unit when the tenant vacates, and vacancies are filled from a waiting list maintained by the regulatory agency (24 CFR 983.203 [c]). No approval was requested or obtained for appellant to reside in the premises as an additional family member (see, 24 CFR 982.551 [h] [2]; 983.1 [b] [1]), and HUD’s policies (see, 24 CFR 982.551 [h] [4]) do not recognize care attendants as family members for continued occupancy purposes. Under such circumstances, appellant is neither entitled to continuation of the section 8 subsidy (see, Matter of Evans v Franco, 93 NY2d 823) nor to the necessarily entwined benefit of successor occupancy.

McCooe, J.P., Gangel-Jacob and Suarez, JJ., concur.

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

[814]*814OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Appellant’s decedent was the tenant of record of a project-based section 8 housing unit. She commenced occupancy in the apartment as a home health care worker and was consistently identified on leases and annual income recertifications as a “live-in attendant.” While appellant claims to have enjoyed a personal relationship with the decedent, we agree that there is no basis for appellant to succeed to possession as a nontraditional family member under state law. Project-based subsidies remain with the unit when the tenant vacates, and vacancies are filled from a waiting list maintained by the regulatory agency (24 CFR 983.203 [c]). No approval was requested or obtained for appellant to reside in the premises as an additional family member (see, 24 CFR 982.551 [h] [2]; 983.1 [b] [1]), and HUD’s policies (see, 24 CFR 982.551 [h] [4]) do not recognize care attendants as family members for continued occupancy purposes. Under such circumstances, appellant is neither entitled to continuation of the section 8 subsidy (see, Matter of Evans v Franco, 93 NY2d 823) nor to the necessarily entwined benefit of successor occupancy.

McCooe, J.P., Gangel-Jacob and Suarez, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 Misc. 2d 813, 738 N.Y.S.2d 813, 2002 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 79, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davidson-1992-associates-v-corbett-nyappterm-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack