Goldman v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldman v. New York City Housing Authority

63 A.D.3d 532, 880 N.Y.S.2d 473

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

DecidedJune 16, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 63 A.D.3d 532 (Goldman 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

Goldman v. New York City Housing Authority, 63 A.D.3d 532, 880 N.Y.S.2d 473 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered December 18, 2007, denying the petition to annul respondent’s determination rejecting petitioner’s attempt to succeed a deceased public housing tenant as a remaining family member, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The determination that petitioner was not eligible for “remaining family member” status upon the death of the nonrelated tenant was neither arbitrary nor capricious (see generally Jamison v New York City Hous. Auth.-Lincoln Houses, 25 AD3d 501 [2006]). Petitioner was unable to demonstrate that she met several of the requirements outlined in respondent’s management manual.

[533]*533We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.E, Friedman, Nardelli, Buckley and Abdus-Salaam, JJ. [See 18 Misc 3d 1102(A), 2007 NY Slip Op 52380(11).]

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered December 18, 2007, denying the petition to annul respondent’s determination rejecting petitioner’s attempt to succeed a deceased public housing tenant as a remaining family member, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The determination that petitioner was not eligible for “remaining family member” status upon the death of the nonrelated tenant was neither arbitrary nor capricious (see generally Jamison v New York City Hous. Auth.-Lincoln Houses, 25 AD3d 501 [2006]). Petitioner was unable to demonstrate that she met several of the requirements outlined in respondent’s management manual.

[533]*533We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.E, Friedman, Nardelli, Buckley and Abdus-Salaam, JJ. [See 18 Misc 3d 1102(A), 2007 NY Slip Op 52380(11).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.3d 532, 880 N.Y.S.2d 473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldman-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack