Kamlet v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kamlet v. New York City Housing Authority

308 A.D.2d 363, 764 N.Y.S.2d 350, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9393

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

DecidedSeptember 16, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 308 A.D.2d 363 (Kamlet 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

Kamlet v. New York City Housing Authority, 308 A.D.2d 363, 764 N.Y.S.2d 350, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9393 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority, dated August 8, 2001, dismissing petitioner’s grievance seeking remaining family member status, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Richard Braun, J-], entered September 19, 2002) dismissed, without costs.

Petitioner claims that she is a remaining family member entitled to succeed her deceased grandmother, Maria Mangual, as tenant of record of the subject Housing Authority apartment. In light, however, of the absence of any record of a written request by either Ms. Mangual or petitioner for permission for petitioner to join the Mangual household, there was substantial evidence that petitioner had not satisfied the requirements for remaining family member status set forth in respondent’s manual (see Matter of Powell v Franco, 276 AD2d 430 [2000]). Petitioner’s claims that she was denied her right to counsel at the July 18, 2001 hearing at which her grievance was denied, and that respondent’s attorneys violated Code of Professional Responsibility DR 7-104 (a) (1) and (2) (22 NYCRR 1200.35 [a] [1], [2]) by advising her that she did not need an attorney for the proceedings and questioning her on matters about which the parties’ interests diverged, are without record support. Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Williams, Lerner, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority, dated August 8, 2001, dismissing petitioner’s grievance seeking remaining family member status, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Richard Braun, J-], entered September 19, 2002) dismissed, without costs.

Petitioner claims that she is a remaining family member entitled to succeed her deceased grandmother, Maria Mangual, as tenant of record of the subject Housing Authority apartment. In light, however, of the absence of any record of a written request by either Ms. Mangual or petitioner for permission for petitioner to join the Mangual household, there was substantial evidence that petitioner had not satisfied the requirements for remaining family member status set forth in respondent’s manual (see Matter of Powell v Franco, 276 AD2d 430 [2000]). Petitioner’s claims that she was denied her right to counsel at the July 18, 2001 hearing at which her grievance was denied, and that respondent’s attorneys violated Code of Professional Responsibility DR 7-104 (a) (1) and (2) (22 NYCRR 1200.35 [a] [1], [2]) by advising her that she did not need an attorney for the proceedings and questioning her on matters about which the parties’ interests diverged, are without record support. Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Williams, Lerner, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

308 A.D.2d 363, 764 N.Y.S.2d 350, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kamlet-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack