Renda v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

22 A.D.3d 382, 802 N.Y.S.2d 655
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 20, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 22 A.D.3d 382 (Renda v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal) 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
Renda v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 22 A.D.3d 382, 802 N.Y.S.2d 655 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rosalyn Richter, J.), entered June 18, 2004, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal’s (DHCR) denial of her appeal from a housing company’s denial of her application for succession rights to an apartment, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The determination that petitioner’s grandmother’s Mitchell-Lama apartment was not petitioner’s primary residence for at least two years prior to her grandmother’s death on June 9, 1997 (9 NYCRR 1727-8.3 [a]) has a rational basis and should not be disturbed. Whereas a number of the witnesses stated that they had met petitioner at the apartment in the summer of 1997, i.e., less than two years before her grandmother’s death, none could definitively state that she moved in, or that they met or saw her there, prior to June 9, 1997. Nor did petitioner adduce persuasive evidence that the apartment was her primary residence. Her own statement and that of her parents in this [383]*383regard equivocated between the apartment and the parents’ house, and the claim that it was the apartment was utterly unsupported by school records, a motor vehicle registration or driver’s license, bank accounts, employment records or any documentation other than the annual income affidavits for 1997-1999, by definition necessary but not sufficient to prove primary residence (9 NYCRR 1727-8.2 [a] [5]). Petitioner’s 1997-1999 tax returns originally listed her parents’ address, and were amended to reflect the apartment’s address only after DHCR requested tax records. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Ellerin, Williams, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Ryan v. New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev.
2019 NY Slip Op 5221 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of Sherman v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal
2016 NY Slip Op 7753 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Murphy v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal
91 A.D.3d 481 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Greichel v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal
39 A.D.3d 421 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 A.D.3d 382, 802 N.Y.S.2d 655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/renda-v-new-york-state-division-of-housing-community-renewal-nyappdiv-2005.