Watson v. Perine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Watson v. Perine

288 A.D.2d 7, 732 N.Y.S.2d 159, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10154

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

DecidedNovember 1, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 288 A.D.2d 7 (Watson v. Perine) 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

Watson v. Perine, 288 A.D.2d 7, 732 N.Y.S.2d 159, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10154 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority, dated August 8, 2000, which, after an administrative hearing, found that petitioner was not a family member within the meaning of the applicable rule and granted respondent Lindsay Park Housing Corp.’s request for a certificate of eviction, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804 [g] by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Louis York, J.], entered March 6, 2001), dismissed, without costs.

Upon review of the record, we find substantial evidence (see, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180) to support respondent’s determination that [8]*8petitioner was not entitled to succeed to the tenancy of the subject apartment upon the ground that she was a nontraditional family member of the deceased prior occupant of said apartment. While petitioner did share a close relationship with the decedent, she was not a family member of the decedent’s within the meaning of 28 RCNY 3-02 (p) (2) (ii) (A) and did not meet her burden of showing the “emotional and financial commitment and interdependence” with the prior apartment occupant upon which legal cognition of a nontraditional family relationship must be premised in the context of determining housing succession rights (see, 28 RCNY 3-02 [p] [2] [ii] [B]; see also, Seminole Realty Co. v Greenbaum, 209 AD2d 345, lv dismissed 85 NY2d 922).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Tom, Wallach and Rubin, 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 August 8, 2000, which, after an administrative hearing, found that petitioner was not a family member within the meaning of the applicable rule and granted respondent Lindsay Park Housing Corp.’s request for a certificate of eviction, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804 [g] by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Louis York, J.], entered March 6, 2001), dismissed, without costs.

Upon review of the record, we find substantial evidence (see, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180) to support respondent’s determination that [8]*8petitioner was not entitled to succeed to the tenancy of the subject apartment upon the ground that she was a nontraditional family member of the deceased prior occupant of said apartment. While petitioner did share a close relationship with the decedent, she was not a family member of the decedent’s within the meaning of 28 RCNY 3-02 (p) (2) (ii) (A) and did not meet her burden of showing the “emotional and financial commitment and interdependence” with the prior apartment occupant upon which legal cognition of a nontraditional family relationship must be premised in the context of determining housing succession rights (see, 28 RCNY 3-02 [p] [2] [ii] [B]; see also, Seminole Realty Co. v Greenbaum, 209 AD2d 345, lv dismissed 85 NY2d 922).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Tom, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 7, 732 N.Y.S.2d 159, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watson-v-perine-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack