Li v. Department of Housing Preservation & Development

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Li v. Department of Housing Preservation & Development

12 A.D.3d 315, 784 N.Y.S.2d 867, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14437

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

DecidedNovember 30, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 12 A.D.3d 315 (Li v. 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

Li v. Department of Housing Preservation & Development, 12 A.D.3d 315, 784 N.Y.S.2d 867, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14437 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent agency, dated January 8, 2002, which authorized petitioner’s eviction, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and this proceeding (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Ronald A. Zweibel, J.], entered October 17, 2003) dismissed, with costs in favor of intervenor, payable by petitioner.

Petitioner failed to offer any evidence at the hearing that the apartment was his primary residence. Substantial evidence in the record supports respondent’s finding that it was not (300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d [316]*316176 [1978]). We have reviewed petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Buckley, EJ., Williams, Lerner, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent agency, dated January 8, 2002, which authorized petitioner’s eviction, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and this proceeding (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Ronald A. Zweibel, J.], entered October 17, 2003) dismissed, with costs in favor of intervenor, payable by petitioner.

Petitioner failed to offer any evidence at the hearing that the apartment was his primary residence. Substantial evidence in the record supports respondent’s finding that it was not (300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d [316]*316176 [1978]). We have reviewed petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Buckley, EJ., Williams, Lerner, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.3d 315, 784 N.Y.S.2d 867, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14437, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/li-v-department-of-housing-preservation-development-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack