Valentin v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Valentin v. New York City Housing Authority

72 A.D.3d 486, 898 N.Y.S.2d 130

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

DecidedApril 8, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 72 A.D.3d 486 (Valentin 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

Valentin v. New York City Housing Authority, 72 A.D.3d 486, 898 N.Y.S.2d 130 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered January 13, 2009, which denied petitioner’s CPLR article 78 petition and dismissed the proceeding in which he sought to annul a determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), dated March 19, 2008, denying his remaining family member (RFM) grievance, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner, having undisputedly lived with his grandmother in the subject apartment for many years, albeit without authorization, has standing to bring this article 78 proceeding (Via v Franco, 223 AD2d 479 [1996]). Nonetheless, NYCHA’s finding that petitioner did not qualify for RFM status is supported by substantial evidence and has a rational basis in the record (see Matter of Purdy v Kreisberg, 47 NY2d 354, 358 [1979]). The record supports the agency’s finding that petitioner did not become an authorized occupant of his grandmother’s apartment prior to her death in 2004. Petitioner’s arguments notwithstanding, the agency’s denial of his grandmother’s 1995 application to add him as an authorized occupant was final and the applicable four-month statute of limitations has long since expired. As to [487]*487the agency’s denial of his grandmother’s second application in 1998, even assuming that neither petitioner nor his grandmother received notice of that denial, petitioner makes no challenge to the substance of that determination, which was based on his ineligibility due to a prior criminal conviction.

We have considered petitioner’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Catterson, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered January 13, 2009, which denied petitioner’s CPLR article 78 petition and dismissed the proceeding in which he sought to annul a determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), dated March 19, 2008, denying his remaining family member (RFM) grievance, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner, having undisputedly lived with his grandmother in the subject apartment for many years, albeit without authorization, has standing to bring this article 78 proceeding (Via v Franco, 223 AD2d 479 [1996]). Nonetheless, NYCHA’s finding that petitioner did not qualify for RFM status is supported by substantial evidence and has a rational basis in the record (see Matter of Purdy v Kreisberg, 47 NY2d 354, 358 [1979]). The record supports the agency’s finding that petitioner did not become an authorized occupant of his grandmother’s apartment prior to her death in 2004. Petitioner’s arguments notwithstanding, the agency’s denial of his grandmother’s 1995 application to add him as an authorized occupant was final and the applicable four-month statute of limitations has long since expired. As to [487]*487the agency’s denial of his grandmother’s second application in 1998, even assuming that neither petitioner nor his grandmother received notice of that denial, petitioner makes no challenge to the substance of that determination, which was based on his ineligibility due to a prior criminal conviction.

We have considered petitioner’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Catterson, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.3d 486, 898 N.Y.S.2d 130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valentin-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack