Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Maya PELAEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Respondent-Respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland G. DeGrasse, J.), entered August 24, 2007, denying the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to annul respondent's determination, dated October 4, 2006, which dismissed petitioner's grievance seeking to succeed to the tenancy of the deceased tenant as a remaining family member, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The determination that petitioner was not a remaining family member and therefore not entitled to succession rights to the subject apartment is neither arbitrary nor capricious (see Jamison v. New York City Hous. Auth.-Lincoln Houses, 25 A.D.3d 501, 809 N.Y.S.2d 14 [2006] ). Petitioner had not resided in the apartment with her mother for one year prior to her death and had not applied for permission to rejoin the household (see Matter of Torres v. New York City Hous. Auth., 40 A.D.3d 328, 835 N.Y.S.2d 184 [2007] ). The evidence also shows that petitioner was not listed on affidavits of income executed in 2004 and 2005, and that in 2004, her mother requested housing management to remove petitioner from the housing composition because, upon graduating from college in Florida, petitioner had decided to remain there. Furthermore, contrary to petitioner's contention, there is no indication that respondent was actually aware of her residency and implicitly approved it prior to the death of the tenant of record (see Matter of New York City Hous. Auth. Hammel Houses v. Newman, 39 A.D.3d 759, 834 N.Y.S.2d 541 [2007] ).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: November 18, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)