Matter of H.W. v. New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev.

2024 NY Slip Op 05405

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: October 31, 2024
• Docket: Index No. Index No. 153647/22 Appeal No. 2947 Case No. 2023-03728
• Status: Published

Opinion

Matter of H.W. v New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. (2024 NY Slip Op 05405)

Matter of H.W. v New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev.

2024 NY Slip Op 05405

Decided on October 31, 2024

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: October 31, 2024
Before: Webber, J.P., Oing, Kapnick, Kennedy, JJ.

Index No. Index No. 153647/22 Appeal No. 2947 Case No. 2023-03728

[*1]In the Matter of H.W., etc., Petitioner-Appellant,

v

New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, Respondent-Respondent.

Mischel & Horn, P.C., New York (Scott T. Horn of counsel), for appellant.

Muriel Goode-Trufant, Acting Corporation Counsel, New York (Jennifer Lerner of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Laurence L. Love, J.), entered May 31, 2023, which denied the petition to annul respondent's determination, dated December 14, 2021, denying petitioner's claim for succession rights to an apartment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent had a rational basis for concluding that petitioner did not establish that he was entitled to succession rights to his aunt's apartment. As is relevant here, 28 RCNY 3-02(p)(3) requires petitioner to establish co-residency with his aunt, the tenant of record, at the commencement of their relationship upon his birth. Petitioner did not establish by credible and sufficient documentation when the aunt vacated the apartment. Therefore, petitioner failed to establish that he resided with her in the apartment at the commencement of their relationship.

Moreover, petitioner's claim was also properly denied because he was in privity with his mother who asserted the same claim and was rejected based on her failure to prove when the aunt vacated the apartment. Petitioner and his mother had the same interest in succeeding to his aunt's apartment, and his mother fully litigated her claim, which was based on the same facts and evidence as petitioner's claim.

We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: October 31, 2024