Kaufman v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kaufman v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development

45 A.D.3d 257, 845 N.Y.S.2d 243

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

DecidedNovember 1, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 45 A.D.3d 257 (Kaufman v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development) 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

Kaufman v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development, 45 A.D.3d 257, 845 N.Y.S.2d 243 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), dated June 16, 2005, which, after hearing, granted respondent Mutual Development Houses, Inc.’s request for a certificate of eviction, 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 [Kibbe F. Payne, J.], entered February 7, 2006), dismissed, without costs.

[258]*258HPD’s determination that the apartment is not petitioner tenant’s primary residence is supported by substantial evidence, including her failure to file income statements, the testimony of Mutual’s legal coordinator and investigator, albeit largely hearsay (see People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139 [1985]), and the failure of petitioner tenant to testify herself. The record demonstrates that the issue of succession rights to the apartment was not raised at the administrative level (see Matter of Steffey v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 276 AD2d 407, 408 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 709 [2001]). We have considered petitioners’ other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Marlow and Buckley, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), dated June 16, 2005, which, after hearing, granted respondent Mutual Development Houses, Inc.’s request for a certificate of eviction, 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 [Kibbe F. Payne, J.], entered February 7, 2006), dismissed, without costs.

[258]*258HPD’s determination that the apartment is not petitioner tenant’s primary residence is supported by substantial evidence, including her failure to file income statements, the testimony of Mutual’s legal coordinator and investigator, albeit largely hearsay (see People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139 [1985]), and the failure of petitioner tenant to testify herself. The record demonstrates that the issue of succession rights to the apartment was not raised at the administrative level (see Matter of Steffey v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 276 AD2d 407, 408 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 709 [2001]). We have considered petitioners’ other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Marlow and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.3d 257, 845 N.Y.S.2d 243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaufman-v-new-york-city-department-of-housing-preservation-development-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack