Opinion
01-28-2016
In re Samantha DIOP, Petitioner, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Whitman Houses, Respondent.
Samantha Diop, petitioner pro se. David I. Farber, New York (Laura R. Bellrose of counsel), for respondent.
Samantha Diop, petitioner pro se.
David I. Farber, New York (Laura R. Bellrose of counsel), for respondent.
Determination of respondent, dated May 9, 2013, which, after a hearing, denied petitioner's grievance seeking succession rights as a remaining family member to the tenancy of her deceased stepfather, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Peter H. Moulton, J.], entered April 16, 2014), dismissed, without costs.
Respondent's determination is supported by substantial evidence (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 180–181, 408 N.Y.S.2d 54, 379 N.E.2d 1183 [1978] ). Petitioner's stepfather, the tenant of record, never obtained respondent's written consent for petitioner's occupancy, and petitioner admits that her most recent continuous residence in the apartment was for a period of less than one year prior to her stepfather's death (see e.g. Matter of Adler v. New York City Hous. Auth., 95 A.D.3d 694, 943 N.Y.S.2d 892 [1st Dept.2012], lv. dismissed 20 N.Y.3d 1053, 961 N.Y.S.2d 828, 985 N.E.2d 423 [2013] ). The fact that petitioner may have paid rent for the premises does not warrant a different determination (see Matter of Vereen v. New York City Hous. Auth., 123 A.D.3d 478, 998 N.Y.S.2d 354 [1st Dept.2014] ). Nor do the mitigating factors set forth by petitioner provide a basis for annulment (see e.g. Matter of Rodriguez v. New York City Hous. Auth., 103 A.D.3d 538, 959 N.Y.S.2d 439 [1st Dept.2013] ).
We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
TOM, J.P., SWEENY, GISCHE, KAPNICK, JJ., concur.