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: MANHATTAN PLAZA ASSOCIATES, L.P., Petitioner-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF the CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent-Respondent, Marilyn Madden, et al., Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Rosalyn Richter, J.), entered March 8, 2004, which denied the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul a determination of respondent New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (DHPD), dated May 30, 2002, denying petitioner's application for a certificate of eviction for the individual respondents, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Petitioner contends that the DHPD regulation which permitted a family member not listed on the annual certifications to rebut the presumption that he or she did not live in the apartment (former 28 RCNY § 3-02[p] ), violated the purpose of the federal Section 8 legislation (42 USC § 1437f), as interpreted by the Court of Appeals in Matter of Evans v. Franco, 93 N.Y.2d 823, 687 N.Y.S.2d 615, 710 N.E.2d 261. We disagree. While Evans held that an agency was not required to hold a hearing to determine the status of a family member who was not listed on certification forms, it does not stand for the proposition that a state agency may never hold a hearing to permit an occupant to rebut the presumption arising by reason of not having been listed on the relevant certification forms. We note that the applicable federal regulations do not mandate any procedure with respect to eviction of tenants in Section 8 housing (see 24 CFR Part 983). The challenged regulation, which permits an applicant to establish that he or she is a bona fide family member entitled to succession rights does not frustrate the purpose of Section 8 law, which, by recognizing the entire family as the tenant (see 42 USC § 1437a), seeks to encourage family cohesion.
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: June 15, 2004
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)