Lopez v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lopez v. New York City Housing Authority

259 A.D.2d 347, 687 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2999

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

DecidedMarch 16, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 259 A.D.2d 347 (Lopez 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

Lopez v. New York City Housing Authority, 259 A.D.2d 347, 687 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2999 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered October 31, 1997, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted the petition to annul a determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority that petitioner was not a “remaining family member” entitled to take over his now-deceased mother’s public housing lease and directed respondent to grant petitioner a lease as a remaining family member, unanimously dismissed as moot, without costs.

Inasmuch as respondent Housing Authority has unconditionally issued a self-renewing lease to petitioner, the issues respondent would raise respecting petitioner’s entitlement to [348]*348such a lease have been mooted and their address is not warranted by any recognized exception to the mootness doctrine (see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 713-714). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Tom and Lerner, JJ.

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

Appeal from order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered October 31, 1997, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted the petition to annul a determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority that petitioner was not a “remaining family member” entitled to take over his now-deceased mother’s public housing lease and directed respondent to grant petitioner a lease as a remaining family member, unanimously dismissed as moot, without costs.

Inasmuch as respondent Housing Authority has unconditionally issued a self-renewing lease to petitioner, the issues respondent would raise respecting petitioner’s entitlement to [348]*348such a lease have been mooted and their address is not warranted by any recognized exception to the mootness doctrine (see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 713-714). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Tom and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 347, 687 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2999, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lopez-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack