Hye v. Franco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hye v. Franco

262 A.D.2d 87, 693 N.Y.S.2d 5, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6479

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

DecidedJune 10, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D.2d 87 (Hye 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

Hye v. Franco, 262 A.D.2d 87, 693 N.Y.S.2d 5, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6479 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered October 31, 1997, which, in a proceeding challenging defendants’ denial to plaintiff of a Federal preference for public housing, deemed the proceeding to be in the nature of CPLR article 78, denied the application and dismissed the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since plaintiff resides in housing provided by a voluntary supported independent living program, under a sublease that will allow her to remain for an indefinite period of time, a rational basis exists for the finding that she is living in “permanent”, as opposed to “transitional”, housing within the meaning of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 USC § 11301 et seq.), and therefore is not entitled to a Federal preference for public housing (see, 24 CFR former 960.212, 960.213 [a] [2]). We have considered plaintiff’s other arguments and find them to be unpersuasive. Concur — Mazzarelli, J. P., Rubin, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered October 31, 1997, which, in a proceeding challenging defendants’ denial to plaintiff of a Federal preference for public housing, deemed the proceeding to be in the nature of CPLR article 78, denied the application and dismissed the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since plaintiff resides in housing provided by a voluntary supported independent living program, under a sublease that will allow her to remain for an indefinite period of time, a rational basis exists for the finding that she is living in “permanent”, as opposed to “transitional”, housing within the meaning of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 USC § 11301 et seq.), and therefore is not entitled to a Federal preference for public housing (see, 24 CFR former 960.212, 960.213 [a] [2]). We have considered plaintiff’s other arguments and find them to be unpersuasive. Concur — Mazzarelli, J. P., Rubin, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 87, 693 N.Y.S.2d 5, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6479, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hye-v-franco-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack