Taylor v. New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Taylor v. New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal

73 A.D.3d 634, 900 N.Y.S.2d 865

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 25, 2010·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered April 25, 2008, to the extent appealed from, denying the petition to annul the determination of respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) which denied petitioner Taylor’s application for succession rights to the deceased tenant’s apartment, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered January 14, 2009, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as abandoned.

Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the subject apartment was petitioner Taylor’s primary residence, since she was not listed on the deceased tenant’s income affidavits and no notice of a change in family composition had been filed (see 9 NYCRR 1727-8.2 [a] [2]; 1700.2 [a] [13] [formerly 9 NYCRR 1727-8.2 (a) (5)]; Matter of Greichel v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 39 AD3d 421 [2007]). Regardless of whether respondent Amalgamated Warbasse Houses, Inc. knew of and acquiesced to Taylor’s residency in the apartment, DHCR cannot be estopped from invoking the regulations (Matter of Schorr v New York City Dept, of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 10 NY3d 776 [2008] ).

We have considered petitioners’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Catterson, Renwick and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered April 25, 2008, to the extent appealed from, denying the petition to annul the determination of respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) which denied petitioner Taylor’s application for succession rights to the deceased tenant’s apartment, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered January 14, 2009, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as abandoned.

Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the subject apartment was petitioner Taylor’s primary residence, since she was not listed on the deceased tenant’s income affidavits and no notice of a change in family composition had been filed (see 9 NYCRR 1727-8.2 [a] [2]; 1700.2 [a] [13] [formerly 9 NYCRR 1727-8.2 (a) (5)]; Matter of Greichel v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 39 AD3d 421 [2007]). Regardless of whether respondent Amalgamated Warbasse Houses, Inc. knew of and acquiesced to Taylor’s residency in the apartment, DHCR cannot be estopped from invoking the regulations (Matter of Schorr v New York City Dept, of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 10 NY3d 776 [2008] ).

We have considered petitioners’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Catterson, Renwick and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Taylor v. New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, 73 A.D.3d 634, 900 N.Y.S.2d 865 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

73 A.D.3d 634 (Taylor v. New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related