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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

135 A.D.3d 665, 23 N.Y.S.3d 574

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

DecidedJanuary 28, 2016

Docket68 401345/13

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 135 A.D.3d 665 (Matter of Diop 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 Diop v. New York City Hous. Auth., 135 A.D.3d 665, 23 N.Y.S.3d 574 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent, dated May 9, 2013, which, after a hearing, denied petitioner’s grievance seeking succession rights as a remaining family member to the tenancy of her deceased stepfather, 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 [Peter H. Moulton, J.], entered April 16, 2014), dismissed, without costs.

Respondent’s determination is supported by substantial evidence (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180-181 [1978]). Petitioner’s stepfather, the tenant of record, never obtained respondent’s written consent for petitioner’s occupancy, and petitioner admits that her most recent continuous residence in the apartment was for a period of less than one year prior to her stepfather’s death (see e.g. Matter of Adler v New York City Hous. Auth., 95 AD3d 694 [1st Dept 2012], lv dismissed 20 NY3d 1053 [2013]). The fact that petitioner may have paid rent for the premises does not warrant a different determination (see Matter of Vereen v New York City Hous. Auth., 123 AD3d 478 [1st Dept 2014]). Nor do the mitigating factors set forth by petitioner provide a basis for annulment (see e.g. Matter of Rodriguez v New York City Hous. Auth., 103 AD3d 538 [1st Dept 2013]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent, dated May 9, 2013, which, after a hearing, denied petitioner’s grievance seeking succession rights as a remaining family member to the tenancy of her deceased stepfather, 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 [Peter H. Moulton, J.], entered April 16, 2014), dismissed, without costs.

Respondent’s determination is supported by substantial evidence (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180-181 [1978]). Petitioner’s stepfather, the tenant of record, never obtained respondent’s written consent for petitioner’s occupancy, and petitioner admits that her most recent continuous residence in the apartment was for a period of less than one year prior to her stepfather’s death (see e.g. Matter of Adler v New York City Hous. Auth., 95 AD3d 694 [1st Dept 2012], lv dismissed 20 NY3d 1053 [2013]). The fact that petitioner may have paid rent for the premises does not warrant a different determination (see Matter of Vereen v New York City Hous. Auth., 123 AD3d 478 [1st Dept 2014]). Nor do the mitigating factors set forth by petitioner provide a basis for annulment (see e.g. Matter of Rodriguez v New York City Hous. Auth., 103 AD3d 538 [1st Dept 2013]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 A.D.3d 665, 23 N.Y.S.3d 574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-diop-v-new-york-city-hous-auth-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack