Salgado v. Franco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Salgado v. Franco

290 A.D.2d 272, 735 N.Y.S.2d 745, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 144

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

DecidedJanuary 10, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 290 A.D.2d 272 (Salgado v. Franco) 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

Salgado v. Franco, 290 A.D.2d 272, 735 N.Y.S.2d 745, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 144 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority dated January 7, 1998, terminating petitioner’s public housing tenancy for noncompliance with an agreement to maintain the continued absence of her mother from her apartment, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Herman Cahn, J.], entered July 19, 1999) dismissed, without costs.

Petitioner’s claim that the stipulation was unfair or based on a misrepresentation was not raised at the hearing and therefore may not be judicially reviewed (see, Matter of Featherstone v Franco, 95 NY2d 550, 554). Nor is our sense of fairness shocked (see, id.) by the evidence of petitioner’s mother’s ill health, at least where petitioner did not assert any attempts to find an alternative caregiver or residence for her mother. We have considered petitioner’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Williams, Saxe, Wallach and Friedman, 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 dated January 7, 1998, terminating petitioner’s public housing tenancy for noncompliance with an agreement to maintain the continued absence of her mother from her apartment, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Herman Cahn, J.], entered July 19, 1999) dismissed, without costs.

Petitioner’s claim that the stipulation was unfair or based on a misrepresentation was not raised at the hearing and therefore may not be judicially reviewed (see, Matter of Featherstone v Franco, 95 NY2d 550, 554). Nor is our sense of fairness shocked (see, id.) by the evidence of petitioner’s mother’s ill health, at least where petitioner did not assert any attempts to find an alternative caregiver or residence for her mother. We have considered petitioner’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Williams, Saxe, Wallach and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 A.D.2d 272, 735 N.Y.S.2d 745, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salgado-v-franco-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack