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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 16, 2009·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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] We 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] We 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).]

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

Pincite

63 A.D.3d 532 (Goldman v. New York City Housing Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related