Lieder v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lieder v. New York City Housing Authority

129 A.D.3d 644, 10 N.Y.S.3d 871

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

DecidedJune 30, 2015

StatusPublished

This text of 129 A.D.3d 644 (Lieder 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

Lieder v. New York City Housing Authority, 129 A.D.3d 644, 10 N.Y.S.3d 871 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

[645]*645Determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority, dated July 31, 2013, which, after a hearing, denied petitioner’s grievance seeking succession rights as a remaining family member to the tenancy of his late grandmother, 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 [Shlomo Hagler, J.], entered June 10, 2014), dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence supports respondent’s finding that petitioner did not qualify for remaining family member status because he did not obtain respondent’s written consent to his occupancy (see Matter of King v New York City Hous. Auth., 118 AD3d 636, 636 [1st Dept 2014]). Petitioner did not show that respondent acquiesced to his occupancy and, in any event, petitioner may not invoke estoppel against respondent (id. at 637).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Acosta, Andrias, Moskowitz and Clark, JJ.

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

[645]*645Determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority, dated July 31, 2013, which, after a hearing, denied petitioner’s grievance seeking succession rights as a remaining family member to the tenancy of his late grandmother, 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 [Shlomo Hagler, J.], entered June 10, 2014), dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence supports respondent’s finding that petitioner did not qualify for remaining family member status because he did not obtain respondent’s written consent to his occupancy (see Matter of King v New York City Hous. Auth., 118 AD3d 636, 636 [1st Dept 2014]). Petitioner did not show that respondent acquiesced to his occupancy and, in any event, petitioner may not invoke estoppel against respondent (id. at 637).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Acosta, Andrias, Moskowitz and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 A.D.3d 644, 10 N.Y.S.3d 871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lieder-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2015.