Knopfler v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Knopfler v. New York City Housing Authority

92 A.D.3d 507, 937 N.Y.2d 857

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 92 A.D.3d 507 (Knopfler 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

Knopfler v. New York City Housing Authority, 92 A.D.3d 507, 937 N.Y.2d 857 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Petitioner’s assertion that an unnamed NYCHA employee assured him that moving out of his public housing apartment would have no effect on his priority for a voucher cannot estop the agency from revoking petitioner’s priority. Indeed, no discretion was involved in NYCHA’s determination that petitioner lost his priority when he vacated the apartment, as this determination was mandated by the agency’s policies (see Matter of Muhammad v New York City Hous. Auth., 81 AD3d 526, 527 [2011]; see also Matter of Cahill [Rowan Group, Inc. — Commissioner of Labor], 79 AD3d 1514, 1514-1515 [2010]).

We have considered petitioner’s arguments, including that the matter should be remanded for a hearing or trial and that the agency denied him of due process, and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 30599(11).]

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

Petitioner’s assertion that an unnamed NYCHA employee assured him that moving out of his public housing apartment would have no effect on his priority for a voucher cannot estop the agency from revoking petitioner’s priority. Indeed, no discretion was involved in NYCHA’s determination that petitioner lost his priority when he vacated the apartment, as this determination was mandated by the agency’s policies (see Matter of Muhammad v New York City Hous. Auth., 81 AD3d 526, 527 [2011]; see also Matter of Cahill [Rowan Group, Inc. — Commissioner of Labor], 79 AD3d 1514, 1514-1515 [2010]).

We have considered petitioner’s arguments, including that the matter should be remanded for a hearing or trial and that the agency denied him of due process, and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 30599(11).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 A.D.3d 507, 937 N.Y.2d 857, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knopfler-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack