Hutchinson v. New York City Housing Authority

19 A.D.3d 246, 797 N.Y.S.2d 74, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6803
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 21, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 19 A.D.3d 246 (Hutchinson 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
Hutchinson v. New York City Housing Authority, 19 A.D.3d 246, 797 N.Y.S.2d 74, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6803 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Kibble E Payne, J.), entered November 30, 2004, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul a determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority, dated January 14, 2004, denying petitioner remaining family member status and declaring her ineligible for continued occupancy of an apartment unit owned and operated by the Housing Authority, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The challenged determination, denying petitioner’s application for remaining family member status on the ground that written permission had not been obtained for her occupancy in the apartment, is neither arbitrary nor capricious (see Matter of McFarlane v New York City Hous. Auth., 9 AD3d 289 [2004]; Matter of Abdil v Martinez, 307 AD2d 238 [2003]). The record affords no basis for relieving petitioner of the written notice requirement, since petitioner failed to establish that the Housing Authority knew of and implicitly approved of her permanent residency in the apartment (see McFarlane, 9 AD3d at 291). Nor may the Housing Authority be estopped from denying remaining family member status by reason of its purported failure to provide the tenant of record with the necessary permission forms (see Morley v Arricale, 66 NY2d 665, 667 [1985]; Matter of Stokely v Franco, 251 AD2d 97, 97-98 [1998]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Marlow, Ellerin and Catterson, JJ.

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

Related

Ortiz v. Rhea
127 A.D.3d 665 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
King v. New York City Housing Authority
118 A.D.3d 636 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Rodriguez v. Hernandez
51 A.D.3d 532 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Johnson v. New York City Housing Authority
50 A.D.3d 438 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Chavez v. Hernandez
22 A.D.3d 408 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
19 A.D.3d 246, 797 N.Y.S.2d 74, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6803, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hutchinson-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2005.