Opinion
2014-05-22
In re William MALLAY, Petitioner–Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Respondent–Respondent.
William Mallay, appellant pro se. Kelly D. MacNeal, New York (Marisa Shemi of counsel), for respondent.
William Mallay, appellant pro se. Kelly D. MacNeal, New York (Marisa Shemi of counsel), for respondent.
RENWICK, J.P., RICHTER, MANZANET–DANIELS, FEINMAN, GISCHE, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol E. Huff, J.), entered November 30, 2012, which denied the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, seeking to annul respondent's determination dated November 30, 2011, denying petitioner succession rights, as a remaining family member to the subject apartment, and dismissed the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Petitioner did not sustain his burden of establishing entitlement to succession rights as a remaining family member to the apartment held by his deceased fiancé. The record demonstrates that his occupancy was not pursuant to respondent Housing Authority's written permission, nor was it reflected in the affidavits of income submitted to respondent by the deceased tenant ( 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] ). In any event, although petitioner testified that he and the tenant, who died on January 1, 2010, were domestic partners, he proffered no evidence that they registered the partnership, and hence, their relationship “is not within the Housing Authority's category of immediate relatives who are able to obtain permanent permission to occupy an apartment and succeed to a deceased tenant's lease” (Matter of Hawthorne v. New York City Hous. Auth., 81 A.D.3d 420, 421, 916 N.Y.S.2d 55 [1st Dept.2011], citing NYCHA Management Manual, ch. IV).
We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.