Opinion
01-26-2015
In re Melissa T. MITCHNER, Petitioner, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Mitchell Houses, Respondent.
Melissa T. Mitchner, petitioner pro se. David I. Farber, New York (Andrew M. Lupin of counsel), for respondent.
Melissa T. Mitchner, petitioner pro se.
David I. Farber, New York (Andrew M. Lupin of counsel), for respondent.
TOM, J.P., ACOSTA, SAXE, MOSKOWITZ, FEINMAN, JJ.
Opinion Determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority (N.Y.CHA), dated July 25, 2012, which denied petitioner's grievance seeking succession rights as a remaining family member to the tenancy of her late grandmother, 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 [Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.], entered February 11, 2013), dismissed, without costs.
Substantial evidence supports respondent's determination that petitioner is not entitled to succession rights as a remaining family member (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. 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 during the relevant period 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. denied 20 N.Y.3d 1053, 961 N.Y.S.2d 828, 985 N.E.2d 423 [2013] ). Petitioner's claimed lack of awareness that her income had not been reported does not warrant a different result (see Johnson v. State of New York Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 213 A.D.2d 345, 624 N.Y.S.2d 417 [1st Dept.1995] ).
Petitioner's prior, authorized occupancy was terminated in 2005 upon her grandmother's submission of a Notice of Intent to Vacate and supporting notarized letter which reflected that petitioner had left the household. As the head of the household and tenant of record, petitioner's grandmother was authorized to remove members of her household (see e.g. Abdil v. Martinez, 307 A.D.2d 238, 242, 763 N.Y.S.2d 262 [1st Dept.2003] ).
Petitioner's payment of rent did not confer legitimacy on her occupancy (see Perez v. New York City Hous. Auth., 99 A.D.3d 624, 625, 952 N.Y.S.2d 876 [1st Dept.2012] ) and her mitigating circumstances do not provide a basis for annulling NYCHA's determination (see Firpi v. New York City Hous. Auth., 107 A.D.3d 523, 524, 967 N.Y.S.2d 352 [1st Dept.2013] ). Additionally, petitioner may not invoke estoppel against a governmental agency, such as respondent (see Parkview Assocs. 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, appeal dismissed, 488 U.S. 801, 109 S.Ct. 30, 102 L.Ed.2d 9 [1988] ; Adler v. New York City Hous. Auth., supra ).We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.