Washington v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Washington v. New York City Housing Authority

278 A.D.2d 331, 718 N.Y.S.2d 203, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12909

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

DecidedDecember 11, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 278 A.D.2d 331 (Washington 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

Washington v. New York City Housing Authority, 278 A.D.2d 331, 718 N.Y.S.2d 203, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12909 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent New York City Housing Authority dated May 13, 1999, which, after a hearing, found that he was not entitled to “remaining family member” status.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

There is substantial evidence supporting the respondent’s determination that the petitioner is not a “remaining family member” and accordingly is not entitled to occupancy of the subject public housing apartment (see, Matter of Powell v Franco, 276 AD2d 430; Matter of Davis v Franco, 270 AD2d 55; Matter of Lipschitz v New York City Hous. Auth., 257 AD2d 622; Matter of Kolarick v Franco, 240 AD2d 204). Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, Goldstein and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent New York City Housing Authority dated May 13, 1999, which, after a hearing, found that he was not entitled to “remaining family member” status.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

There is substantial evidence supporting the respondent’s determination that the petitioner is not a “remaining family member” and accordingly is not entitled to occupancy of the subject public housing apartment (see, Matter of Powell v Franco, 276 AD2d 430; Matter of Davis v Franco, 270 AD2d 55; Matter of Lipschitz v New York City Hous. Auth., 257 AD2d 622; Matter of Kolarick v Franco, 240 AD2d 204). Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, Goldstein and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 331, 718 N.Y.S.2d 203, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/washington-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack