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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

130 A.D.3d 433, 14 N.Y.S.3d 330

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

DecidedJuly 2, 2015

Docket15589 100189/14

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 130 A.D.3d 433 (Matter of Williams 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 Williams v. New York City Hous. Auth., 130 A.D.3d 433, 14 N.Y.S.3d 330 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), dated October 15, 2013, which, after a hearing, denied petitioner’s rent grievance, except to the extent that she is entitled to a $148 credit, 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 May 14, 2014), dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence supports NYCHA’s determination that petitioner is not entitled to any further adjustment to her rent (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180-181 [1978]). The calculations by respondent

Queensbridge North Houses, as modified in this proceeding to correct certain errors made at the administrative hearing that do not result in any credit owed petitioner, were explained in detail by Queensbridge’s former property manager, whose testimony the hearing officer credited, and supported by *434 documentary evidence. Petitioner’s challenge to a $1,950 retroactive charge is based upon her misunderstanding of respondents’ annual rent review time lines, which provided that, as a tenant assigned to the third quarter, she was required to submit her paperwork by July 1.

Petitioner’s due process claims in connection with rent charges, credits, and procedural violations are unpreserved for judicial review (see Matter of Moore v Rhea, 111 AD3d 445 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of Rowe v Rhea, 101 AD3d 420 [1st Dept 2012]). In any event, they are unsupported. Petitioner’s administrative hearing comported with due process, and the hearing officer resolved the issue of all of the charges and credits challenged therein.

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Gische, 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 (NYCHA), dated October 15, 2013, which, after a hearing, denied petitioner’s rent grievance, except to the extent that she is entitled to a $148 credit, 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 May 14, 2014), dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence supports NYCHA’s determination that petitioner is not entitled to any further adjustment to her rent (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180-181 [1978]). The calculations by respondent

Queensbridge North Houses, as modified in this proceeding to correct certain errors made at the administrative hearing that do not result in any credit owed petitioner, were explained in detail by Queensbridge’s former property manager, whose testimony the hearing officer credited, and supported by *434 documentary evidence. Petitioner’s challenge to a $1,950 retroactive charge is based upon her misunderstanding of respondents’ annual rent review time lines, which provided that, as a tenant assigned to the third quarter, she was required to submit her paperwork by July 1.

Petitioner’s due process claims in connection with rent charges, credits, and procedural violations are unpreserved for judicial review (see Matter of Moore v Rhea, 111 AD3d 445 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of Rowe v Rhea, 101 AD3d 420 [1st Dept 2012]). In any event, they are unsupported. Petitioner’s administrative hearing comported with due process, and the hearing officer resolved the issue of all of the charges and credits challenged therein.

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 A.D.3d 433, 14 N.Y.S.3d 330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-williams-v-new-york-city-hous-auth-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack