Opinion
15399 Index No. 155883/20 Case No. 2021–02470
03-01-2022
In the Matter of Geoffrey WRIGHT, Petitioner–Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT, et al., Respondents–Respondents.
Ilganayev Law Firm, PLLC, New York (Migir Ilganayev of counsel), for appellant. Georgia M. Pestana, Corporation Counsel, New York (Eva L. Jerome of counsel), for New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, respondent. Sontag & Hyman, P.C., Roslyn Heights (Bruce Sontag of counsel), for Esplanade Gardens, Inc., respondent.
Ilganayev Law Firm, PLLC, New York (Migir Ilganayev of counsel), for appellant.
Georgia M. Pestana, Corporation Counsel, New York (Eva L. Jerome of counsel), for New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, respondent.
Sontag & Hyman, P.C., Roslyn Heights (Bruce Sontag of counsel), for Esplanade Gardens, Inc., respondent.
Gische, J.P., Shulman, Rodriguez, Pitt, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered on or about February 3, 2021, which denied the petition to annul the determination of respondent New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), dated December 9, 2019, denying petitioner succession rights to his deceased mother's apartment and issuing a certificate of eviction, and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
While HPD was processing his application for succession rights, petitioner received repeated requests for credible and reliable proofs of primary residency during the relevant time period. Petitioner was also afforded due process and a full and fair opportunity to meet his regulatory burden. Nonetheless, petitioner failed to demonstrate his right to succeed his mother in occupancy of the subject apartment (see Matter of Halcomb v. New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 187 A.D.3d 673, 673, 135 N.Y.S.3d 366 [1st Dept. 2020] ). As a senior citizen, petitioner was required to show that his mother's apartment was his primary residence for at least one year immediately preceding his mother's death (28 RCNY 3–02[n][4][iv], [p][3], [6]; see 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] ). Petitioner failed to submit a certified New York City resident income tax return for the relevant time, as required (28 RCNY 3–02[n][4][iv], [p][3]; see Matter of Bien–Aime v. Been, 171 A.D.3d 495, 496, 95 N.Y.S.3d 804 [1st Dept. 2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 905, 2019 WL 6318028 [2019] ).
Petitioner also failed to submit the 2017 income affidavit listing him as a co-occupant of the apartment (see 28 RCNY 3–02[n][4][iv], [p][3]; Matter of Borekas v. New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 151 A.D.3d 539, 539–540, 55 N.Y.S.3d 49 [1st Dept. 2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1106, 61 N.Y.S.3d 194, 83 N.E.3d 203 [2017] ). Thus, HPD rationally concluded that the information he submitted does not show that he primarily resided in the apartment until his mother died (see Matter of Horne v. Wambua, 143 A.D.3d 605, 606, 39 N.Y.S.3d 457 [1st Dept. 2016] ).
We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.