Jamison v. New York City Housing Authority-Lincoln Houses

25 A.D.3d 501, 809 N.Y.S.2d 14
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 26, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 25 A.D.3d 501 (Jamison v. New York City Housing Authority-Lincoln Houses) 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
Jamison v. New York City Housing Authority-Lincoln Houses, 25 A.D.3d 501, 809 N.Y.S.2d 14 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

[502]*502Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered October 27, 2004, denying the petition and dismissing this proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The challenged administrative determination, which denied 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]). Petitioner does not qualify as a remaining family member because she did not enter the apartment lawfully. Respondent never gave the tenant of record written permission for petitioner to join his household, and petitioner admitted that no such permission was ever obtained from project management for her to reside in the subject apartment. The fact that no written permission was ever obtained was further corroborated by the tenant’s annual income affidavits for the years petitioner allegedly lived in the apartment, in which he listed no occupants of the apartment other than himself, and by the testimony of the Housing Assistant that prior to the tenant’s death, he had never requested that anyone join his household. Nor was there any reference to petitioner in the tenant’s file while he was alive. The record affords no basis for relieving petitioner of the written notice requirement, since she failed to establish that respondent knew or implicitly approved of her permanent residency in the apartment (see McFarlane, 9 AD3d at 291).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.

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

Related

Echeverria v. New York City Housing Authority
85 A.D.3d 580 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Goldman v. New York City Housing Authority
63 A.D.3d 532 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Rivera v. New York City Housing Authority
60 A.D.3d 509 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Pelaez v. New York City Housing Authority
56 A.D.2d 325 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Abreu v. New York City Housing Authority East River Houses
52 A.D.3d 432 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
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)
McLeon v. NYCHA Hope Gardens
48 A.D.3d 686 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
New York City Housing Authority Hammel Houses v. Newman
39 A.D.3d 759 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
25 A.D.3d 501, 809 N.Y.S.2d 14, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jamison-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-lincoln-houses-nyappdiv-2006.