Pazana v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pazana v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development

101 A.D.3d 517, 954 N.Y.2d 880

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

DecidedDecember 13, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 101 A.D.3d 517 (Pazana v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development) 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

Pazana v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development, 101 A.D.3d 517, 954 N.Y.2d 880 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

[518]*518The agency’s determination had a rational basis in the record (see Matter of Hochhauser v City of N.Y. Dept. of Hous. Presero. & Deo., 48 AD3d 288 [1st Dept 2008]). Even assuming that petitioner established disability, she still failed to meet her burden of proving that she resided in the apartment as her primary residence for a one-year period prior to her grandmother’s death in May 2008 (see 28 RCNY 3-02 [p] [3]). Petitioner’s affidavit contained the equivocal claim that she “spent much time” at the apartment, where she had lived “for extended periods,” which residency she believed lasted for “well over half the year” in both 2006 and 2007. While petitioner explained the absence of some of the normal documentary indicia of residency, she failed to explain the lack of any other documentary proof of such residence (compare Matter of Murphy o New York State Dio. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 91 ÁD3d 481 [1st Dept 2012], lo granted 19 NY3d 812 [2012]).

The court properly refused to consider additional evidence not submitted to the agency (see Matter of Yarbough o Franco, 95 NY2d 342, 347 [2000]), which submissions, in any event, would not have changed the outcome.

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Renwick and Clark, JJ.

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

[518]*518The agency’s determination had a rational basis in the record (see Matter of Hochhauser v City of N.Y. Dept. of Hous. Presero. & Deo., 48 AD3d 288 [1st Dept 2008]). Even assuming that petitioner established disability, she still failed to meet her burden of proving that she resided in the apartment as her primary residence for a one-year period prior to her grandmother’s death in May 2008 (see 28 RCNY 3-02 [p] [3]). Petitioner’s affidavit contained the equivocal claim that she “spent much time” at the apartment, where she had lived “for extended periods,” which residency she believed lasted for “well over half the year” in both 2006 and 2007. While petitioner explained the absence of some of the normal documentary indicia of residency, she failed to explain the lack of any other documentary proof of such residence (compare Matter of Murphy o New York State Dio. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 91 ÁD3d 481 [1st Dept 2012], lo granted 19 NY3d 812 [2012]).

The court properly refused to consider additional evidence not submitted to the agency (see Matter of Yarbough o Franco, 95 NY2d 342, 347 [2000]), which submissions, in any event, would not have changed the outcome.

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Renwick and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 A.D.3d 517, 954 N.Y.2d 880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pazana-v-new-york-city-department-of-housing-preservation-development-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack