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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

139 A.D.3d 739, 29 N.Y.S.3d 187

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

DecidedMay 4, 2016

Docket2015-04377

StatusPublished

This text of 139 A.D.3d 739 (Shmushkovich 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

Shmushkovich v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development, 139 A.D.3d 739, 29 N.Y.S.3d 187 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development dated December 11, 2013, which determined that the petitioner does not have succession rights to an apartment owned by the respondent Luna Park Housing Corporation, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Walker, J.), dated June 13, 2014, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The finding of the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development that the petitioner did not have succession rights to an apartment in a building owned by Luna Park Housing Corporation was not arbitrary and capricious, and had a rational basis in the record (see Matter of Peckham v Calogero, 12 NY3d 424, 431 [2009]). The petitioner failed to *740 establish that he resided in the subject apartment in the two years prior to the vacatur of the apartment by his parents, who were the tenants of record (see Matter of Kaplan v New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. 124 AD3d 660 [2015]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit or need not be addressed in light of our determination.

Leventhal, J.P., Dickerson, Cohen and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development dated December 11, 2013, which determined that the petitioner does not have succession rights to an apartment owned by the respondent Luna Park Housing Corporation, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Walker, J.), dated June 13, 2014, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The finding of the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development that the petitioner did not have succession rights to an apartment in a building owned by Luna Park Housing Corporation was not arbitrary and capricious, and had a rational basis in the record (see Matter of Peckham v Calogero, 12 NY3d 424, 431 [2009]). The petitioner failed to *740 establish that he resided in the subject apartment in the two years prior to the vacatur of the apartment by his parents, who were the tenants of record (see Matter of Kaplan v New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. 124 AD3d 660 [2015]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit or need not be addressed in light of our determination.

Leventhal, J.P., Dickerson, Cohen and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.3d 739, 29 N.Y.S.3d 187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shmushkovich-v-new-york-city-department-of-housing-preservation-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack