From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Angelo Quinto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 23, 2010
78 A.D.3d 559 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Summary

reiterating that "petitioners may not invoke estoppel to prevent HPD from executing its statutory duty to provide Mitchell-Lama housing only to individuals who meet the specified eligibility requirements."

Summary of this case from Jimenez v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth.

Opinion

No. 3676.

November 23, 2010.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered November 17, 2009, which, inter alia, denied petitioners' application to annul the determination of respondent New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) denying petitioners succession rights to the subject Mitchelllama apartment and dismissed the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Jonathan S. Roller, Brooklyn for appellants.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Victoria Scalzo of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Sweeny, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.


The determination that petitioners did not sustain their burden of establishing an entitlement to succession rights to petitioner Angelo Quinto's parents' apartment had a rational basis. Petitioners' submissions were insufficient to rebut the presumption created by the failure to include either petitioner in the income affidavit for 2001 ( see e.g. Matter of Miney v Donovan, 68 AD3d 876, 877), and HPD was entitled to consider the inconsistencies contained in other documents submitted and the fact that petitioners provided a different address as their place of residence on tax returns filed during the relevant period ( see 28 RCNY 3-02 [n] [4]; Matter of Hochhauser v City of N.Y. Dept. of Hous. Preserv. Dev., 48 AD3d 288; Matter of Pietropolo v New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. Dev., 39 AD3d 406). Furthermore, petitioners may not invoke the doctrine of estoppel to "prevent HPD from executing its statutory duty to provide Mitchell-Lama housing only to individuals who meet the specified eligibility requirements" ( Matter of Schorr v New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. Dev., 10 NY3d 776, 779; Miney, 68 AD3d at 878).


Summaries of

In re Angelo Quinto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 23, 2010
78 A.D.3d 559 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

reiterating that "petitioners may not invoke estoppel to prevent HPD from executing its statutory duty to provide Mitchell-Lama housing only to individuals who meet the specified eligibility requirements."

Summary of this case from Jimenez v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth.

reiterating that "petitioners may not invoke estoppel to prevent HPD from executing its statutory duty to provide Mitchell-Lama housing only to individuals who meet the specified eligibility requirements."

Summary of this case from Schwartz v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth.

reiterating that “petitioners may not invoke estoppel to prevent HPD from executing its statutory duty to provide Mitchell–Lama housing only to individuals who meet the specified eligibility requirements.”

Summary of this case from In the Matter of Kwan–fong Fung & Pak Fung v. N.Y. City Hous. Auth.
Case details for

In re Angelo Quinto

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ANGELO QUINTO et al., Appellants, v. NEW YORK CITY…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Nov 23, 2010

Citations

78 A.D.3d 559 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
913 N.Y.S.2d 23

Citing Cases

Waterside Plaza Ground Lessee, LLC v. Rwambuya

Paragraph 13 specifically refers to the “evidentiary burdens” normally associated with such claims. Since the…

Schwartz v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth.

However, a subsequent decision by the Court of Appeals in In the Matter of Schorr v. New York City Department…