Opinion
6176 Index 100092/14
04-03-2018
In re Rivka JACOBOWITZ, Petitioner–Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT, Respondent–Respondent.
Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., New York (Jeffrey Turkel of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Max O. McCann of counsel), for respondent.
Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., New York (Jeffrey Turkel of counsel), for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Max O. McCann of counsel), for respondent.
Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Gesmer, Kern, Singh, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo S. Hagler, J.), entered February 4, 2016, denying the petition to annul the determination of respondent, dated September 23, 2013, which denied petitioner succession rights to the subject Mitchell–Lama apartment, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The determination has a rational basis in the record and was made in accordance with lawful procedure (see generally Matter of Pietropolo v. New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 39 A.D.3d 406, 836 N.Y.S.2d 16 [1st Dept. 2007] ; CPLR 7803[3] ). Even assuming that petitioner's sister was the tenant of record for purposes of succession, petitioner failed to provide credible documentation establishing when she moved into the apartment, and when her sister vacated, sufficient to establish entitlement to succession rights (28 RCNY 3–02[p][3]; Yunayeva v. Kings Bay Hous. Co., Inc., 94 A.D.3d 452, 453, 941 N.Y.S.2d 591 [1st Dept. 2012] ). Petitioner only submitted her 2009 tax returns and did not submit any of the suggested proofs of primary residency, such as bank statements, voter registration statements, or bills addressed to her at the apartment (see e.g. Matter of Horne v. Wambua, 143 A.D.3d 605, 39 N.Y.S.3d 457 [1st Dept. 2016] ). Furthermore, the self-generated documents, as well as those documents prepared by her sister and brother-in-law, did not conclusively establish co-residency during the relevant time period (see Matter of Hochhauser v. City of N.Y. Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 48 A.D.3d 288, 853 N.Y.S.2d 22 [1st Dept. 2008] ).
We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.