Opinion
15921, 400274/14.
10-22-2015
In re Tyshema BASNIGHT, et al., Petitioners–Appellants, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Respondent–Respondent.
Urban Justice Center, New York (Rajiv Jaswa of counsel), for appellants. David I. Farber, New York City Housing Authority Law Department, New York (Laura R. Bellrose of counsel), for respondent.
Urban Justice Center, New York (Rajiv Jaswa of counsel), for appellants.
David I. Farber, New York City Housing Authority Law Department, New York (Laura R. Bellrose of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered October 23, 2014, denying the petition to annul respondent's determination, dated November 6, 2013, which denied petitioner Tyshema Basnight's (petitioner) claim of succession rights to a public housing lease as a remaining family member and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The record contains substantial evidence to support the administrative determination that petitioner does not qualify as a remaining family member. Petitioner was granted written permission to reside in the subject apartment with her mother on or about October 3, 2012 (24 C.F.R. 966.4 [a][1][v]; Matter of Abdil v. Martinez , 307 A.D.2d 238, 239, 763 N.Y.S.2d 262 [1st Dept.2003] ), and petitioner's mother passed away on November 3, 2012. Thus, petitioner did not occupy the apartment with respondent's written permission for one year prior to the death of her mother, the tenant of record (Matter of Saad v. New York City Hous. Auth., 105 A.D.3d 672, 964 N.Y.S.2d 136 [1st Dept.2013] ). That respondent's determination might constitute a hardship for petitioner does not afford a basis for annulment (see Matter of Featherstone v. Franco, 95 N.Y.2d 550, 554, 720 N.Y.S.2d 93, 742 N.E.2d 607 [2000] ; Matter of McFarlane v. New York City Hous. Auth., 9 A.D.3d 289, 290, 780 N.Y.S.2d 135 [1st Dept.2004] ). Petitioner's contention that the one-year requirement to succeed to a tenancy required the Hearing Officer to consider the totality of the circumstances and mitigating factors has previously been rejected and is unpreserved (Matter of Fermin v. New York City Hous. Auth., 67 A.D.3d 433, 889 N.Y.S.2d 137 [1st Dept.2009] ). Review is confined to issues raised in the administrative proceedings (Matter of Rozmae Realty v. State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 160 A.D.2d 343, 553 N.Y.S.2d 738 [1990], lv. denied 76 N.Y.2d 712, 563 N.Y.S.2d 768, 565 N.E.2d 517 [1990] ), and “the court may not consider arguments or evidence not contained in the administrative record” (Brusco v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 170 A.D.2d 184, 185, 565 N.Y.S.2d 86 [1991], appeal dismissed 77 N.Y.2d 939, 569 N.Y.S.2d 611, 572 N.E.2d 52 [1991], cert. denied 502 U.S. 857, 112 S.Ct. 172, 116 L.Ed.2d 135 [1991] ).We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
TOM, J.P., ANDRIAS, MOSKOWITZ, KAPNICK, JJ., concur.