Hawthorne v. N.Y. City Hous. Auth.
| Decision Date | 01 February 2011 |
| Citation | 916 N.Y.S.2d 55,81 A.D.3d 420 |
| Parties | In re Kriss HAWTHORNE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Respondent-Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Kriss Hawthorne, appellant pro se.
Sonya M. Kaloyanides, New York (Seth E. Kramer of counsel), for respondent.
ANDRIAS, J.P., SWEENY, MOSKOWITZ, DEGRASSE, ABDUS-SALAAM, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered January 14, 2010, which granted the cross motion of respondent New York City Housing Authority pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) and dismissed the petition challenging respondent's determination that petitioner was not entitled to a "remaining family member" grievance hearing, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Since respondent Housing Authority's rule (New York City Housing Authority Housing Management Manual, ch. VII, § E[1][c][2] ) requires continued payment of use and occupancy as a condition precedent to commencement of a grievance onentitlement to status as a remaining family member, petitioner's acknowledgment that he had failed to pay use and occupancy charges provided grounds for respondent's determination ( see Garcia v. Franco, 248 A.D.2d 263, 264-265, 670 N.Y.S.2d 436 [1998], lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 813, 680 N.Y.S.2d 906, 703 N.E.2d 764 [1998] ).
Additionally, petitioner's relationship, as godson to the deceased tenant, is not within the Housing Authority's category of immediate relatives who are able to obtain permanent permission to occupy an apartment and succeed to a deceased tenant's lease ( see New York City Housing Authority Housing Management Manual, IV[B] ). There is no provision for permitting a tenant's godson to succeed to a lease; thus, the denial of petitioner's grievance without a hearing was not arbitraryand capricious ( see Goldman v. New York City Hous. Auth., 63 A.D.3d 532, 880 N.Y.S.2d 473 [2009], lv. denied 14 N.Y.3d 701, 898 N.Y.S.2d 96, 925 N.E.2d 101 [2010] ).
Finally, Housing Authority policy requires a tenant to make a written request to the manager to have a relative or other family member become either a legally authorized permanent household member or a co-tenant, a policy consistently enforced by this Court ( see e.g. Edwards v. New York City Hous. Auth., 67 A.D.3d 441, 888 N.Y.S.2d 43 [2009] ). Here, the deceased tenant did not obtain written permission to add petitioner to the household, and he was not listed on the affidavits of income or the tenant data summary. Accordi...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cruz v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth. (In re Figueroa)
...obtained written permission for petitioner to reside in the apartment, citing, inter alia, Matter of Hawthorne v. New York City Hous. Auth. , 81 A.D.3d 420, 421, 916 N.Y.S.2d 55 (1st Dept.2011). However, neither that case nor any of the others cited by the dissent involved petitioners who c......
-
Valette v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth.
...of Henderson v. Popolizio, 76 N.Y.2d 972, 974, 563 N.Y.S.2d 733, 565 N.E.2d 482 [1990] ; Matter of Hawthorne v. New York City Hous. Auth., 81 A.D.3d 420, 420–421, 916 N.Y.S.2d 55 [1st Dept.2011] ; Garcia v. Franco, 248 A.D.2d 263, 264–265, 670 N.Y.S.2d 436 [1st Dept.1998], lv. denied 92 N.Y......
-
MBIA Ins. Corp. v. Merrill Lynch
... ... resulting from a breach of the contract" ( see Hawthorne Group v. RRE Ventures, 7 A.D.3d 320, 323, 776 N.Y.S.2d 273 ... ...
-
Starbucks Corp. v. New WTC Retail Owner LLC
...based on the failure to provide a Delivery Date or deliver possession of the premises in a reasonable time, is dismissed. See MBIA Ins., 81 A.D.3d at 420; Fleisher, 858 F.Supp.2d at 300. Now remaining is Starbucks's claim that Westfield breached the implied covenant by withholding or delayi......
-
Litigating And Drafting Contractual Disclaimers Of Reliance In A Post-Financial World
...claims arising under the transaction. Courts have cited such waivers to support a motion to dismiss. See MBIA v. Merrill Lynch, 81 A.D.3d at 420 (enforcing disclaimer of reliance where plaintiff expressly waived all affirmative rights (including fraud) asserted as defenses to payment). In a......