Guzy v. Hernandez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Guzy v. Hernandez

4 A.D.3d 117, 770 N.Y.S.2d 862, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 957

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 4 A.D.3d 117 (Guzy v. Hernandez) 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

Guzy v. Hernandez, 4 A.D.3d 117, 770 N.Y.S.2d 862, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 957 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent, dated March 21, 2001, which denied petitioner’s application for status as a “remaining family member,” unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Martin Shulman, JJ, entered January 28, 2003) dismissed, without costs.

Petitioner’s inconsistent testimony and the testimony of two Housing Authority employees associated with the building support the determination that petitioner is not entitled to succeed to the rights of the former tenant, his purported stepfather, with whom he shared the apartment. There is no substantial evidence that the management had actual or constructive notice of petitioner’s residency in the subject apartment, or that he ever requested permission in writing to occupy the apartment jointly with the tenant of record (Matter of Brooks v Wagner Houses, 1 AD3d 284 [2003]). Concur—Tom, J.P, Mazzarelli, Saxe and Marlow, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent, dated March 21, 2001, which denied petitioner’s application for status as a “remaining family member,” unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Martin Shulman, JJ, entered January 28, 2003) dismissed, without costs.

Petitioner’s inconsistent testimony and the testimony of two Housing Authority employees associated with the building support the determination that petitioner is not entitled to succeed to the rights of the former tenant, his purported stepfather, with whom he shared the apartment. There is no substantial evidence that the management had actual or constructive notice of petitioner’s residency in the subject apartment, or that he ever requested permission in writing to occupy the apartment jointly with the tenant of record (Matter of Brooks v Wagner Houses, 1 AD3d 284 [2003]). Concur—Tom, J.P, Mazzarelli, Saxe and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.3d 117, 770 N.Y.S.2d 862, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 957, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guzy-v-hernandez-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack