Matter of Rodriguez v. Olatoye

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Rodriguez v. Olatoye

2017 NY Slip Op 3863, 150 A.D.3d 476, 51 N.Y.S.3d 879

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

DecidedMay 11, 2017

Docket3978 101914/15

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 3863 (Matter of Rodriguez v. Olatoye) 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 Rodriguez v. Olatoye, 2017 NY Slip Op 3863, 150 A.D.3d 476, 51 N.Y.S.3d 879 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority, dated September 2, 2015, which, after a hearing, denied petitioner’s grievance seeking succession rights to the tenancy of her late grandmother, 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 [Barbara Jaffe, J.], entered May 26, 2016), dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence, including a lease and investigative evidence reflecting petitioner’s residency elsewhere, supports respondent’s determination that petitioner is not entitled to succession rights as a remaining family member (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180-182 [1978]). Petitioner failed to meet her burden of establishing continuous occupancy in the subject apartment for one year prior to her grandmother’s death (see Matter of Jenkins v New York City Hous. Auth., Amsterdam Houses, 129 AD3d 432 [1st Dept 2015]; Matter of Jacobowitz v New York City Hous. Auth., 49 AD3d 278 [1st Dept 2008]). There exists no basis to disturb the credibility determinations of the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443 [1987]).

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

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels, Kapnick and Webber, 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 September 2, 2015, which, after a hearing, denied petitioner’s grievance seeking succession rights to the tenancy of her late grandmother, 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 [Barbara Jaffe, J.], entered May 26, 2016), dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence, including a lease and investigative evidence reflecting petitioner’s residency elsewhere, supports respondent’s determination that petitioner is not entitled to succession rights as a remaining family member (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180-182 [1978]). Petitioner failed to meet her burden of establishing continuous occupancy in the subject apartment for one year prior to her grandmother’s death (see Matter of Jenkins v New York City Hous. Auth., Amsterdam Houses, 129 AD3d 432 [1st Dept 2015]; Matter of Jacobowitz v New York City Hous. Auth., 49 AD3d 278 [1st Dept 2008]). There exists no basis to disturb the credibility determinations of the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443 [1987]).

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

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels, Kapnick and Webber, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 3863, 150 A.D.3d 476, 51 N.Y.S.3d 879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-rodriguez-v-olatoye-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack