Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Quan v. New York City Dep't of Housing Preservation and Development

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT


February 18, 2010

IN RE OANFA QUAN, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT, ET AL., RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin G. Diamond, J.), entered July 13, 2009, which denied petitioner's application to annul the determination of respondent New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) denying petitioner succession rights to the subject Mitchell-Lama apartment, and dismissed the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Friedman J.P., Sweeny, Nardelli, Freedman, JJ.

102419/09

The determination that petitioner did not sustain her burden of establishing her entitlement to succession rights to her grandmother's apartment had a rational basis (see Matter of Hochhauser v City of N.Y. Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 48 AD3d 288 [2008]; Matter of Pietropolo v New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 39 AD3d 406 [2007]). Although petitioner did submit, inter alia, income affidavits and tax returns listing the subject apartment as her address, in rejecting the application, HPD was entitled to consider the inconsistencies contained in other documents filed during the relevant time period, including where petitioner provided an address other than the subject apartment as her place of residence (see 28 RCNY 3-02[n][4]; Hochhauser, 48 AD3d at 289).

Contrary to petitioner's contention, she was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing since the regulation under which she claimed succession rights does not provide for a hearing (see 28 RCNY 3-02[p]). The record shows that petitioner utilized the statutory protections and was afforded all the due process to which she was entitled under the circumstances (28 RCNY 3-02 [p] [8][ii]; Pietropolo, 39 AD3d at 407).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

20100218

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.