Davis v. Franco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Davis v. Franco

270 A.D.2d 55, 704 N.Y.S.2d 56, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2602

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

DecidedMarch 9, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 270 A.D.2d 55 (Davis v. Franco) 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

Davis v. Franco, 270 A.D.2d 55, 704 N.Y.S.2d 56, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2602 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination of respondent Housing Authority dated September 16,1998, denying petitioner’s remaining family member grievance concerning [56]*56the subject public housing apartment, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Carol Huff, J.], entered on or about February 25, 1999), dismissed, without costs.

Respondent’s finding that petitioner is not a remaining family member has rational support in the undisputed fact that petitioner did not obtain the written approval required by respondent’s Management Manual (ch VII [E] [1] [a]) before moving into his sister’s apartment. It does not avail petitioner that he continued to live in the apartment after his sister’s belated request for approval was denied (see, Matter of Kolarick v Franco, 240 AD2d 204). That denial was not contested and any challenge thereto is time-barred. We have considered petitioner’s other arguments and find them unpersuasive. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Ellerin, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Determination of respondent Housing Authority dated September 16,1998, denying petitioner’s remaining family member grievance concerning [56]*56the subject public housing apartment, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Carol Huff, J.], entered on or about February 25, 1999), dismissed, without costs.

Respondent’s finding that petitioner is not a remaining family member has rational support in the undisputed fact that petitioner did not obtain the written approval required by respondent’s Management Manual (ch VII [E] [1] [a]) before moving into his sister’s apartment. It does not avail petitioner that he continued to live in the apartment after his sister’s belated request for approval was denied (see, Matter of Kolarick v Franco, 240 AD2d 204). That denial was not contested and any challenge thereto is time-barred. We have considered petitioner’s other arguments and find them unpersuasive. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Ellerin, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 55, 704 N.Y.S.2d 56, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2602, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-franco-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack