Matter of Mitchner v. New York City Hous. Auth., Mitchell Houses

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Mitchner v. New York City Hous. Auth., Mitchell Houses

124 A.D.3d 530, 998 N.Y.S.2d 627

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

DecidedJanuary 26, 2015

Docket14042 402099/12

StatusPublished

This text of 124 A.D.3d 530 (Matter of Mitchner v. New York City Hous. Auth., Mitchell Houses) 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 Mitchner v. New York City Hous. Auth., Mitchell Houses, 124 A.D.3d 530, 998 N.Y.S.2d 627 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority, dated December 19, 2012, which, after a hearing, denied petitioner succession rights as a remaining family member to the tenancy of her late mother, 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 [Shlomo Hagler, J.], entered December 3, 2013), dismissed, without costs.

Respondent’s determination is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Purdy v Kreisberg, 47 NY2d 354, 358 [1979]). Petitioner conceded that her mother, the tenant of record, had never obtained respondent’s written consent for petitioner’s occupancy (see Matter of King v New York City Hous. Auth., 118 AD3d 636, 636 [1st Dept 2014]).

*531 The doctrine of estoppel cannot be invoked against respondent (see Matter of New York State Med. Transporters Assn. v Perales, 77 NY2d 126, 130 [1990]; see also King, 118 AD3d at 637). Nor do petitioner’s mitigating factors provide a basis for annulling respondent’s determination (see King, 118 AD3d at 637).

Concur — Tom, J.E, Acosta, Saxe, Moskowitz and Feinman, 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 December 19, 2012, which, after a hearing, denied petitioner succession rights as a remaining family member to the tenancy of her late mother, 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 [Shlomo Hagler, J.], entered December 3, 2013), dismissed, without costs.

Respondent’s determination is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Purdy v Kreisberg, 47 NY2d 354, 358 [1979]). Petitioner conceded that her mother, the tenant of record, had never obtained respondent’s written consent for petitioner’s occupancy (see Matter of King v New York City Hous. Auth., 118 AD3d 636, 636 [1st Dept 2014]).

*531 The doctrine of estoppel cannot be invoked against respondent (see Matter of New York State Med. Transporters Assn. v Perales, 77 NY2d 126, 130 [1990]; see also King, 118 AD3d at 637). Nor do petitioner’s mitigating factors provide a basis for annulling respondent’s determination (see King, 118 AD3d at 637).

Concur — Tom, J.E, Acosta, Saxe, Moskowitz and Feinman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.3d 530, 998 N.Y.S.2d 627, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-mitchner-v-new-york-city-hous-auth-mitchell-houses-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack