Opinion
2014-06-26
In re Najuma KING, Petitioner, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Respondent.
Najuma King, petitioner pro se. Kelly D. MacNeal, New York (Maria Termini of counsel), for respondent.
Najuma King, petitioner pro se. Kelly D. MacNeal, New York (Maria Termini of counsel), for respondent.
MAZZARELLI, J.P., ACOSTA, FREEDMAN, RICHTER, CLARK, JJ.
Determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), dated February 22, 2012, which denied petitioner's grievance seeking succession rights as a remaining family member to the tenancy of her late mother, 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 [Cynthia Kern, J.], entered June 19, 2012), dismissed, without costs.
Substantial evidence supports respondent's 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, 180–182, 408 N.Y.S.2d 54, 379 N.E.2d 1183 [1978] ). Petitioner's occupancy was not pursuant to NYCHA's written authority and was not reflected in the affidavits of income ( see Matter of Adler v. New York City Hous. Auth., 95 A.D.3d 694, 695, 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];Matter of Weisman v. New York City Hous. Auth., 91 A.D.3d 543, 544, 937 N.Y.S.2d 189 [1st Dept.2012],lv. dismissed19 N.Y.3d 921, 950 N.Y.S.2d 90, 973 N.E.2d 185 [2012] ).
Petitioner's mitigating circumstances, including the hardship to her and her family, do not provide a basis for annulling NYCHA's determination ( see Matter of Firpi v. New York City Hous. Auth., 107 A.D.3d 523, 524, 967 N.Y.S.2d 352 [1st Dept.2013];Matter of Guzman v. New York City Hous. Auth., 85 A.D.3d 514, 925 N.Y.S.2d 59 [1st Dept.2011] ). Petitioner's argument that she qualifies as a “Tenant” under federal law is unpreserved for judicial review, having not been raised at the administrative hearing ( see Matter of Moore v. Rhea, 111 A.D.3d 445, 974 N.Y.S.2d 413 [1st Dept.2013];Matter of Torres v. New York City Hous. Auth., 40 A.D.3d 328, 330, 835 N.Y.S.2d 184 [1st Dept.2007] ). As an alternate holding, we find it unavailing ( see Matter of Abdil v. Martinez, 307 A.D.2d 238, 242, 763 N.Y.S.2d 262 [1st Dept.2003];Matter of Faison v. New York City Hous. Auth., 283 A.D.2d 353, 356, 726 N.Y.S.2d 23 [1st Dept.2001] ). Additionally, petitioner may not invoke estoppel against a governmental agency such as respondent ( see Matter of Parkview Assoc. v. City of New York, 71 N.Y.2d 274, 282, 525 N.Y.S.2d 176, 519 N.E.2d 1372 [1988],cert. denied, app. dism.,488 U.S. 801, 109 S.Ct. 30, 102 L.Ed.2d 9 [1988];Matter of Hutcherson v. New York City Hous. Auth., 19 A.D.3d 246, 797 N.Y.S.2d 74 [1st Dept.2005] ).