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: Juan ARROYO, et al., Petitioners, v. Shaun DONOVAN, as Commissioner of the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, et al., Respondents.
Determination of respondent Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), dated April 24, 2008, which, after a hearing, granted respondent Woodstock Terrace Mutual 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 by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Jane S. Solomon, J.], entered November 6, 2008) dismissed, and the stay of eviction vacated, without costs.
HPD's determination that the subject apartment is not petitioners' primary residence is supported by substantial evidence, including the facts that they own a home in Florida and that petitioner Juan Arroyo's driver's license and car registration were issued by the State of Florida (see 28 RCNY 3-02[n] [4]; Matter of O'Quinn v. New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 284 A.D.2d 211, 726 N.Y.S.2d 644 [2001]; Matter of Studley v. New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 277 A.D.2d 101, 715 N.Y.S.2d 697 [2000] ). Petitioners submitted no documentation in support of their allegation that their grandchild, who is listed on the income affidavit as an occupant of the apartment, is home-schooled (see Regulations of the Commissioner of Education [8 NYCRR] § 100.10 detailing reporting requirements). Moreover, neither petitioners' and their witnesses' testimony nor the documentary evidence was sufficient to refute the finding that petitioners did not reside in the subject apartment for the required 183 days per year (28 RCNY 3-02[n][4][iv] ).
Petitioners were provided with sufficient notice of the charges against them (see 28 RCNY 3-18[a][3] ). They were not entitled to an opportunity to cure their nonprimary residence (see 28 RCNY 3-18[b]; Matter of O'Quinn, 284 A.D.2d at 212, 726 N.Y.S.2d 644).
We have considered petitioners' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: February 18, 2010
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)