Matter of Andrade v. New York City Hous. Auth.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Andrade v. New York City Hous. Auth.

132 A.D.3d 598, 18 N.Y.S.3d 344

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

DecidedOctober 29, 2015

Docket16018 400833/14

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 132 A.D.3d 598 (Matter of Andrade v. New York City Hous. Auth.) 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

Matter of Andrade v. New York City Hous. Auth., 132 A.D.3d 598, 18 N.Y.S.3d 344 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority, dated March 7, 2014, which, after a hearing, denied petitioner’s remaining family member grievance, 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 [Michael D. Stallman, J.], entered Sept. 16, 2014), dismissed, without costs.

Respondent’s determination has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180-182 [1978]). Petitioner never obtained respondent’s written consent to his occupancy of his mother’s apartment (see Matter of Ortiz v Rhea, 127 AD3d 665, 666 [1st Dept 2015]). Even if respondent *599 was aware that petitioner was living in the apartment to care for his mother, respondent may not be estopped from denying petitioner’s grievance (see id.). Nor do petitioner’s alleged mitigating factors provide a basis for annulling respondent’s determination (id.). Petitioner may not “inherit” the public housing apartment (see Matter of Dancil v New York City Hous. Auth., 123 AD3d 442, 442 [1st Dept 2014]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority, dated March 7, 2014, which, after a hearing, denied petitioner’s remaining family member grievance, 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 [Michael D. Stallman, J.], entered Sept. 16, 2014), dismissed, without costs.

Respondent’s determination has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180-182 [1978]). Petitioner never obtained respondent’s written consent to his occupancy of his mother’s apartment (see Matter of Ortiz v Rhea, 127 AD3d 665, 666 [1st Dept 2015]). Even if respondent *599 was aware that petitioner was living in the apartment to care for his mother, respondent may not be estopped from denying petitioner’s grievance (see id.). Nor do petitioner’s alleged mitigating factors provide a basis for annulling respondent’s determination (id.). Petitioner may not “inherit” the public housing apartment (see Matter of Dancil v New York City Hous. Auth., 123 AD3d 442, 442 [1st Dept 2014]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 A.D.3d 598, 18 N.Y.S.3d 344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-andrade-v-new-york-city-hous-auth-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack