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.

Valentin v. New York City Housing Authority

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT


April 8, 2010

IN RE VICTOR VALENTIN, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, ET AL., RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered January 13, 2009, which denied petitioner's Article 78 petition and dismissed the proceeding in which he sought to annul a determination of respondent NYCHA, dated March 19, 2008, denying his Remaining Family Member ("RFM") grievance, 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.

Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Catterson, Freedman, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

401849/08

Petitioner, having undisputedly lived with his grandmother in the subject apartment for many years, albeit without authorization, has standing to bring this Article 78 proceeding (Via v Franco, 223 AD2d 479 [1996]). Nonetheless, NYCHA's finding that petitioner did not qualify for RFM status is supported by substantial evidence and has a rational basis in the record (see Matter of Purdy v Kreisberg, 47 NY2d 354, 358 [1979]). The record supports the agency's finding that petitioner did not become an authorized occupant of his grandmother's apartment prior to her death in 2004. Petitioner's arguments notwithstanding, the agency's denial of his grandmother's 1995 application to add him as an authorized occupant was final and the applicable four-month statute of limitations has long since expired. As to the agency's denial of his grandmother's second application in 1998, even assuming that neither petitioner nor his grandmother received notice of that denial, petitioner makes no challenge to the substance of that determination, which was based on his ineligibility due to a prior criminal conviction.

We have considered petitioner's other arguments and find them unavailing.

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

20100408

© 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.