Jenkins v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jenkins v. New York City Housing Authority

129 A.D.3d 432, 11 N.Y.S.3d 40

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

DecidedJune 4, 2015

StatusPublished

This text of 129 A.D.3d 432 (Jenkins 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

Jenkins v. New York City Housing Authority, 129 A.D.3d 432, 11 N.Y.S.3d 40 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent, dated March 6, 2013, after a hearing, denying petitioner Edward Jenkins’s remaining family member claim, filed by petitioner Isaiah Jenkins on Edward’s behalf as his legal guardian, to succession rights to an apartment formerly leased to Edward’s grandmother, Rosa Jenkins, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Alice Schlesinger, J.], entered Apr. 16, 2014), dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence supports respondent’s determination that Edward is not entitled to succession rights as a remaining family member because he failed to meet the requirement of continuous occupancy for at least one year preceding the death of the tenant of record (see Matter of Fermin v New York City Hous. Auth., 67 AD3d 433 [1st Dept 2009]). Isaiah obtained custody of Edward, his nephew, in April 2003. Edward had previously lived with Rosa, the tenant of record, who died in January 2004. The evidence abundantly shows that petitioners generally lived in New Jersey while Edward, then a minor, was attending school there, apparently beginning almost nine months before Rosa’s death. Moreover, Edward did not obtain the requisite written permission to rejoin the household after moving in with Isaiah in New Jersey in April 2003, less than one year before Rosa’s death (see Ortiz v Rhea, 127 AD3d 665 [1st Dept 2015]).

Petitioners’ contention that they were deprived of due process by the preclusion of a witness at the hearing is unpreserved since it was not raised at the administrative level (see Green v New York City Police Dept., 34 AD3d 262 [1st Dept 2006]). Moreover, this claim was improperly raised for the first time in a memorandum of law submitted after respondent filed its answer.

We have considered petitioners’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Acosta, Clark and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent, dated March 6, 2013, after a hearing, denying petitioner Edward Jenkins’s remaining family member claim, filed by petitioner Isaiah Jenkins on Edward’s behalf as his legal guardian, to succession rights to an apartment formerly leased to Edward’s grandmother, Rosa Jenkins, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Alice Schlesinger, J.], entered Apr. 16, 2014), dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence supports respondent’s determination that Edward is not entitled to succession rights as a remaining family member because he failed to meet the requirement of continuous occupancy for at least one year preceding the death of the tenant of record (see Matter of Fermin v New York City Hous. Auth., 67 AD3d 433 [1st Dept 2009]). Isaiah obtained custody of Edward, his nephew, in April 2003. Edward had previously lived with Rosa, the tenant of record, who died in January 2004. The evidence abundantly shows that petitioners generally lived in New Jersey while Edward, then a minor, was attending school there, apparently beginning almost nine months before Rosa’s death. Moreover, Edward did not obtain the requisite written permission to rejoin the household after moving in with Isaiah in New Jersey in April 2003, less than one year before Rosa’s death (see Ortiz v Rhea, 127 AD3d 665 [1st Dept 2015]).

Petitioners’ contention that they were deprived of due process by the preclusion of a witness at the hearing is unpreserved since it was not raised at the administrative level (see Green v New York City Police Dept., 34 AD3d 262 [1st Dept 2006]). Moreover, this claim was improperly raised for the first time in a memorandum of law submitted after respondent filed its answer.

We have considered petitioners’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Acosta, Clark and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 A.D.3d 432, 11 N.Y.S.3d 40, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jenkins-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack