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.

In Re Jazmine Weisman, et al v. New York City Housing Authority

New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts Appellate Division, First Department


January 24, 2012

IN RE JAZMINE WEISMAN, ET AL.,
PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS,
v.
NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY,
RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

Matter of Matter of Weisman v New York City Hous. Auth.

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.

Decided on January 24, 2012

Tom, J.P., Friedman, DeGrasse, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered March 16, 2011, which denied the petition seeking to annul respondent's determination denying petitioners succession rights, as remaining family members, to the subject apartment, and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There exists no basis to disturb the determination that petitioners did not sustain their burden of establishing entitlement to succession rights to the apartment held by petitioner Weisman's mother; petitioner De La Cruz was the tenant's common-law husband. The evidence demonstrates that petitioners' occupancy was not pursuant to respondent's written permission, and was not reflected in the affidavit of income submitted by Weisman's mother in the year before she died (see Matter of Abreu v New York City Hous. Auth. E. Riv. Houses, 52 AD3d 432 [2008]). Weisman has not established that respondent, by its conduct, consented to her tenancy and, even if she had, respondent's alleged approval of the tenancy occurred less than one-year before the death of Weisman's mother (see e.g. Matter of Torres v New York City Hous. Auth., 40 AD3d 328, 329-330 [2007]). Moreover, the payment of rent did not confer legitimacy on petitioners' occupation of the apartment (see Barnhill v New York City Hous. Auth., 280 AD2d 339 [2001]).

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

ENTERED: JANUARY 24, 2012

CLERK

20120124

© 1992-2012 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.