Jacobowitz v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jacobowitz v. New York City Housing Authority

49 A.D.3d 278, 854 N.Y.2d 341

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

DecidedMarch 4, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 49 A.D.3d 278 (Jacobowitz 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

Jacobowitz v. New York City Housing Authority, 49 A.D.3d 278, 854 N.Y.2d 341 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

The challenged determination, which denied petitioner’s grievance for failure to demonstrate her continuous occupancy until the previous tenants of record (her parents) vacated their [279]*279leasehold, was supported by substantial evidence (300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176 [1978]) and is rationally based (Matter of Jennings v New York State Off. of Mental Health, 90 NY2d 227, 239-240 [1997]). Although petitioner was a member of the original tenant family, there are no affidavits of income or family composition, as required by New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) policy and governing regulation (see 24 CFR 960.257 [a]), for the years 2000-2003, listing her as an occupant of these premises. Petitioner’s documentary evidence attested only to at best sporadic occupancy during the period in question. The testimony by NYCHA. officials working at the public housing development formerly occupied by petitioner and her family, credited by the hearing officer, strongly indicated that the family vacated the premises before surrendering their leasehold. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Williams, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

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

The challenged determination, which denied petitioner’s grievance for failure to demonstrate her continuous occupancy until the previous tenants of record (her parents) vacated their [279]*279leasehold, was supported by substantial evidence (300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176 [1978]) and is rationally based (Matter of Jennings v New York State Off. of Mental Health, 90 NY2d 227, 239-240 [1997]). Although petitioner was a member of the original tenant family, there are no affidavits of income or family composition, as required by New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) policy and governing regulation (see 24 CFR 960.257 [a]), for the years 2000-2003, listing her as an occupant of these premises. Petitioner’s documentary evidence attested only to at best sporadic occupancy during the period in question. The testimony by NYCHA. officials working at the public housing development formerly occupied by petitioner and her family, credited by the hearing officer, strongly indicated that the family vacated the premises before surrendering their leasehold. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Williams, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 278, 854 N.Y.2d 341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jacobowitz-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack