Peña v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Peña v. New York City Housing Authority

91 A.D.3d 581, 936 N.Y.2d 891

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 91 A.D.3d 581 (Peña v. New York City Housing Authority) 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

Peña v. New York City Housing Authority, 91 A.D.3d 581, 936 N.Y.2d 891 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

[582]*582Respondent’s determination that petitioner failed to apply to open her default within a reasonable time, give a reasonable excuse for missing her hearing, and set forth a meritorious defense to the charges against her, has a rational basis (see Matter of Daniels v Popolizio, 171 AD2d 596, 597 [1991]). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, in order to vacate her default, she was required to demonstrate a meritorious defense and a reasonable excuse, which she failed to do (see id.; Matter of Barnhill v New York City Hous. Auth., 280 AD2d 339 [2001]).

The court had no basis for treating petitioner’s motion to vacate the court’s 2010 orders pursuant to CPLR 5015 as having been made under CPLR 317; the latter statute applies to judicial proceedings, not proceedings before an agency.

Petitioner’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved or without merit. Concur — Tom, J.E, Sweeny, DeGrasse, AbdusSalaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ. [Prior Case History: 29 Misc 3d 1222(A), 2010 NY Slip Op 51944(C).]

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

[582]*582Respondent’s determination that petitioner failed to apply to open her default within a reasonable time, give a reasonable excuse for missing her hearing, and set forth a meritorious defense to the charges against her, has a rational basis (see Matter of Daniels v Popolizio, 171 AD2d 596, 597 [1991]). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, in order to vacate her default, she was required to demonstrate a meritorious defense and a reasonable excuse, which she failed to do (see id.; Matter of Barnhill v New York City Hous. Auth., 280 AD2d 339 [2001]).

The court had no basis for treating petitioner’s motion to vacate the court’s 2010 orders pursuant to CPLR 5015 as having been made under CPLR 317; the latter statute applies to judicial proceedings, not proceedings before an agency.

Petitioner’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved or without merit. Concur — Tom, J.E, Sweeny, DeGrasse, AbdusSalaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ. [Prior Case History: 29 Misc 3d 1222(A), 2010 NY Slip Op 51944(C).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 A.D.3d 581, 936 N.Y.2d 891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pena-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack