Mount Vernon Housing Authority v. Jordan

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Mount Vernon Housing Authority v. Jordan

124 Misc. 2d 886, 480 N.Y.S.2d 72, 1984 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3268

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 7, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 124 Misc. 2d 886 (Mount Vernon Housing Authority v. Jordan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mount Vernon Housing Authority v. Jordan, 124 Misc. 2d 886, 480 N.Y.S.2d 72, 1984 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3268 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Final judgment affirmed, without costs.

Although the petitioner may terminate a tenancy and not have to offer proof of the fact underlying the reason for the termination (New York City Housing Auth. v Paris, NYLJ, Jan. 8, 1971, p 19, col 7 [App Term, 2d Dept]; New York City Housing Auth. v Gantt, 57 Misc 2d 447 [and cases cited therein]), it must establish that it terminated on a ground authorized by statute or regulation under which the housing accommodations are administered and that procedural safeguards were properly followed (Escalera v New York City Housing Auth., 425 F2d 853; Matter of Vinson v Greenburgh Housing Auth., 29 AD2d 338, affd 27 NY2d 675). In the case at bar, the basis for the termination (9 NYCRR 1627-6.3 [a] [8]) was set forth and the petitioner [887]*887established that proper notification was given to the tenant. That the policy in question was not in writing does not prevent the petitioner from enforcing it. Any challenge to that policy has to come either as an administrative one or, that being exhausted, through a CPLR article 78 proceeding. We conclude that the actions of the Authority were proper and the determination of the court should be affirmed.

All concur.

Farley, P. J., Slifkin and DiPaola, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Final judgment affirmed, without costs.

Although the petitioner may terminate a tenancy and not have to offer proof of the fact underlying the reason for the termination (New York City Housing Auth. v Paris, NYLJ, Jan. 8, 1971, p 19, col 7 [App Term, 2d Dept]; New York City Housing Auth. v Gantt, 57 Misc 2d 447 [and cases cited therein]), it must establish that it terminated on a ground authorized by statute or regulation under which the housing accommodations are administered and that procedural safeguards were properly followed (Escalera v New York City Housing Auth., 425 F2d 853; Matter of Vinson v Greenburgh Housing Auth., 29 AD2d 338, affd 27 NY2d 675). In the case at bar, the basis for the termination (9 NYCRR 1627-6.3 [a] [8]) was set forth and the petitioner [887]*887established that proper notification was given to the tenant. That the policy in question was not in writing does not prevent the petitioner from enforcing it. Any challenge to that policy has to come either as an administrative one or, that being exhausted, through a CPLR article 78 proceeding. We conclude that the actions of the Authority were proper and the determination of the court should be affirmed.

All concur.

Farley, P. J., Slifkin and DiPaola, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 Misc. 2d 886, 480 N.Y.S.2d 72, 1984 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mount-vernon-housing-authority-v-jordan-nyappterm-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack