From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Application of Salgado v. Franco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 10, 2002
290 A.D.2d 272 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

5826

January 10, 2002.

Determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority dated January 7, 1998, terminating petitioner's public housing tenancy for noncompliance with an agreement to maintain the continued absence of her mother from her apartment, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Herman, Cahn, J.], entered July 19, 1999), dismissed, without costs.

EDWARD N. SIMON, for a judgment, etc., petitioner.

STEVEN J. RAPPAPORT, for respondents.

Before: Nardelli, J.P., Williams, Saxe, Wallach, Friedman, JJ.


Petitioner's claim that the stipulation was unfair or based on a misrepresentation was not raised at the hearing and therefore may not be judicially reviewed (see, Matter of Featherstone v. Franco, 95 N.Y.2d 550, 554). Nor is our sense of fairness shocked (see, id.) by the evidence of petitioner's mother's ill health, at least where petitioner did not assert any attempts to find an alternative caregiver or residence for her mother. We have considered petitioner's other arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

In re Application of Salgado v. Franco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 10, 2002
290 A.D.2d 272 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

In re Application of Salgado v. Franco

Case Details

Full title:IN RE APPLICATION OF LOURDES SALGADO, PETITIONER, v. RUBEN FRANCO, ETC.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jan 10, 2002

Citations

290 A.D.2d 272 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
735 N.Y.S.2d 745

Citing Cases

Pacheco v. New York City Hous. Auth.

Pacheco's claim that the stipulation was unfair or based on a misrepresentation was not raised at the hearing…