Johnson v. City of New York

• Decision Date: 08 April 1993
• Citation: 596 N.Y.S.2d 33,192 A.D.2d 352
• Parties: In the Matter of the Application of Alvis JOHNSON, Petitioner-Respondent, For an Application pursuant to Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Municipal Respondents-Appellants, and 41 Convent Avenue Tenants Assoc., et al., Respondents-Appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 33

596 N.Y.S.2d 33

192 A.D.2d 352

In the Matter of the Application of Alvis JOHNSON Petitioner-Respondent For an Application pursuant to Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Municipal Respondents-Appellants and 41 Convent Avenue Tenants Assoc., et al., Respondents-Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Department.

April 8, 1993.

Before MURPHY, P.J., and SULLIVAN, ROSENBERGER, ASCH and RUBIN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), 152 Misc.2d 576, 578 N.Y.S.2d 977, entered October 4, 1991, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 challenging the denial by respondent tenant association of petitioner's application to rent an apartment in a building that participates in respondent Department of Housing Preservation and Development's (HPD) Tenant Interim Lease ("TIL") program, denied the municipal respondents' cross motion to dismiss the petition, and granted the petition to the extent of remanding petitioner's application for an apartment to the tenant association for further consideration, enjoining the tenant association from renting the apartment sought by petitioner upon the posting of an undertaking and until the tenant association makes a determination as to the application and notifies petitioner of the outcome in writing, and directing respondent HPD to promulgate rules for the rental of vacant apartments in buildings participating in the TIL program, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating the direction that HPD promulgate rules, and remanding the matter to respondent Division of Alternate Management Programs of the Department of Housing Preservation and Development for the issuance of a written statement of reasons for the denial of petitioner's application, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Due process does not require the adoption of formal rules, but is satisfied by the less formal procedure of a written statement of reasons for the denial of an application (see, Sidberry v. Koch, 539 F.Supp. 413, 419). In the event of a denial, remedies under State law, including article 78 relief and the tenant association procedures already in place, satisfy the requirements of procedural due process (see, Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 543-544, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 1917, 68 L.Ed.2d 420 overruled on other grounds Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330-331, 106 S.Ct. 662, 664-665, 88 L.Ed.2d...