Lumsby v. Donovan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lumsby v. Donovan

50 A.D.3d 318, 854 N.Y.S.2d 716

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

DecidedApril 3, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 50 A.D.3d 318 (Lumsby v. Donovan) 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

Lumsby v. Donovan, 50 A.D.3d 318, 854 N.Y.S.2d 716 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent agency, dated November 27, 2006, to issue a certificate of eviction, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and this proceeding (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Marcy L. Kahn, J.]), entered on or about May 10, 2007, dismissed, without costs.

The finding that petitioner mother Jean Nelson Lumsby did not maintain the subject apartment as her primary residence for many years is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Shi Yi Tang v New York City Dept. of Hous. Presev. & Dev., 29 AD3d 470 [2006]). Since the mother was not occupying the apartment during the relevant period, petitioner Collette Lumsby could not establish succession rights through her (see Matter of Pietropolo v New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 39 AD3d 406 [2007]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Sweeny, McGuire and Acosta, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent agency, dated November 27, 2006, to issue a certificate of eviction, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and this proceeding (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Marcy L. Kahn, J.]), entered on or about May 10, 2007, dismissed, without costs.

The finding that petitioner mother Jean Nelson Lumsby did not maintain the subject apartment as her primary residence for many years is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Shi Yi Tang v New York City Dept. of Hous. Presev. & Dev., 29 AD3d 470 [2006]). Since the mother was not occupying the apartment during the relevant period, petitioner Collette Lumsby could not establish succession rights through her (see Matter of Pietropolo v New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 39 AD3d 406 [2007]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Sweeny, McGuire and Acosta, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.3d 318, 854 N.Y.S.2d 716, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lumsby-v-donovan-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack