Opinion
2013-12-24
In re Salvador GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Respondent.
John Ciurcina, Attorney At Law, LLC, Garden City (John Ciurcina of counsel), for petitioner. Kelly D. MacNeal, New York (Maria Termini of counsel), for respondent.
John Ciurcina, Attorney At Law, LLC, Garden City (John Ciurcina of counsel), for petitioner. Kelly D. MacNeal, New York (Maria Termini of counsel), for respondent.
MAZZARELLI, J.P., SWEENY, MOSKOWITZ, FREEDMAN, CLARK, JJ.
Determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority (N.Y.CHA), dated July 3, 2012, which approved a Hearing Officer's decision to deny petitioner's grievance seeking succession rights as a remaining family member to the tenancy of his late mother, 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 [Cynthia Kern, J.], entered February 1, 2013), dismissed, without costs.
Substantial evidence supports the determination that petitioner is not entitled to succession rights as a remaining family member (RFM) ( 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] ). The record establishes that petitioner's occupancy of the subject apartment was not pursuant to NYCHA's written permission ( see Matter of Rahjou v. Rhea, 101 A.D.3d 422, 955 N.Y.S.2d 33 [1st Dept.2012]; Matter of Adler v. New York City Hous. Auth., 95 A.D.3d 694, 943 N.Y.S.2d 892 [1st Dept.2012], lv. dismissed20 N.Y.3d 1053, 961 N.Y.S.2d 828, 985 N.E.2d 423 [2013] ), and there exists no basis to disturb the Hearing Officer's finding that petitioner's mother never sought or obtained the agency's written permission to add petitioner to her household ( see Matter of Café La China Corp. v. New York State Liq. Auth., 43 A.D.3d 280, 281, 841 N.Y.S.2d 30 [1st Dept.2007] ). Contrary to petitioner's contention, he is not entitled to RFM status on the ground that the agency had implicit knowledge of his alleged long-term occupancy of the apartment ( see Adler at 695, 943 N.Y.S.2d 892).
We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.