Opinion
13483 Index No 451789/19 Case No. 2020-04337
04-01-2021
In the Matter of Janet WRIGHT, et al., Petitioners-Appellants, v. Louise CARROLL, etc., et al., Respondents-Respondents.
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York ( Alyssa K. Perry of counsel), for appellants. James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York (Mackenzie Fillow of counsel), for Municipal respondent. Hertz, Cherson & Rosenthal, P.C., Queens (David Troupp of counsel), for Riverbend Housing Co. Inc., respondent.
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York ( Alyssa K. Perry of counsel), for appellants.
James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York (Mackenzie Fillow of counsel), for Municipal respondent.
Hertz, Cherson & Rosenthal, P.C., Queens (David Troupp of counsel), for Riverbend Housing Co. Inc., respondent.
Acosta, P.J., Kapnick, Webber, Kennedy, JJ.
Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (Lyle E. Frank, J.), entered February 28, 2020, denying the petition to annul the determination of respondent New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), dated May 30, 2019, which denied petitioners succession rights to the subject apartment, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
HPD's determination that petitioners failed to establish entitlement to succeed to the decedent's rent-controlled apartment tenancy as nontraditional family members is supported by a rational basis, and is not arbitrary and capricious ( see generally Flacke v. Onondaga Landfill Sys., Inc., 69 N.Y.2d 355, 363, 514 N.Y.S.2d 689, 507 N.E.2d 282 [1987] ). Although petitioners clearly shared a close relationship with the decedent, they failed to demonstrate a shared financial commitment and interdependence, as required by HPD regulations (28 RCNY 3–02[p][2][ii][B]; see e.g. Matter of Olivero v. New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 134 A.D.3d 481, 482, 21 N.Y.S.3d 73 [1st Dept. 2015] ). While petitioners averred that the household expenses were paid for in exchange for their caretaking services, they failed to submit any evidence to support this claim, such as statements from a shared bank account or credit card ( compare Matter of Blue Star Props., Inc. v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 133 A.D.3d 461, 19 N.Y.S.3d 285 [1st Dept. 2015] ). Furthermore, there is no indication that petitioners had powers of attorney or were designated as the decedent's health care proxy, or that they were named as beneficiaries in his will ( see e.g. 390 W. End Assoc. v. Wildfoerster, 241 A.D.2d 402, 661 N.Y.S.2d 202 [1st Dept. 1997] ).