Opinion
2002-532 KC.
Decided July 9, 2004.
Appeal by occupant from an order of the Civil Court, Kings County (G. Marton, J.), dated March 5, 2002, denying her motion to vacate a default final judgment of possession.
Order unanimously affirmed without costs.
PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and RIOS, JJ.
To vacate a default final judgment the movant must establish a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense (CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Parker v. City of New York, 272 AD2d 310). We need not decide whether the proffered excuse was reasonable, because occupant's only defense, based on the alleged merits of her claim to succeed to the tenancy of the now-departed leaseholder as a remaining family member, was resolved adversely to occupant following a New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) project grievance hearing, which determination was upheld by the Borough Administrator. Occupant did not seek the further review of that determination to which she was entitled, either pursuant to the grievance procedures or in an article 78 proceeding.
Neither the Federal rules nor the implementing regulations of NYCHA's Management Manual (MM) provide for de novo review of remaining family member claims ( cf. 24 CFR 966.57 [c]). The provisions therein permitting such review apply only to grievants who are already tenants of record ( see MM, ch VII § IV [E] [1] [a]; § VII [E] [1] [b] [2]; Matter of Abdil v. Martinez, 307 AD2d 238, 242; Matter of Faison v. New York City Hous. Auth., 283 AD2d 353, 355-356; New York City Hous. Auth. v. Margiato, No. 2003-905 K C decided herewith). Thus, the doctrine of res judicata, "applicable to quasi-judicial determinations of administrative agencies" ( New York City Hous. Auth. v. Winkler, 175 Misc 2d 1018, 1020) precludes further review of the defense's arguments ( Jeffreys v. Griffin, 1 NY3d 34, 39; Ryan v. New York Tel. Co., 62 NY2d 494, 500), and in the absence of any meritorious defense, the court below properly denied the motion to vacate the default final judgment.