Peña v. New York City Hous. Auth.
| Decision Date | 31 January 2012 |
| Citation | 936 N.Y.S.2d 891,91 A.D.3d 581,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 00650 |
| Parties | In re Maria M. PEÑA, Petitioner–Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Respondent–Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Alberto Torres, Bronx, for appellant.
Sonya M. Kaloyanides, New York (Andrew M. Lupin of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered December 6, 2010, which, upon renewal and reargument, adhered to its order and judgment (one paper), entered September 3, 2010, denying the petition to annul respondent New York City Housing Authority's determination, dated December 7, 2009, to deny petitioner's application to vacate a default that resulted in the termination of her tenancy, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered June 20, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied petitioner's motion to vacate the 2010 orders, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Respondent's determination that petitioner failed to apply to open her default within a reasonable time, give a reasonable excuse for missing her hearing, and set forth a meritorious defense to the charges against her, has a rational basis ( see Matter of Daniels v. Popolizio, 171 A.D.2d 596, 597, 567 N.Y.S.2d 459 [1991] ). Contrary to petitioner's contention, in order to vacate her default, she was required to demonstrate a meritorious defense and a reasonable excuse, which she failed to do ( see id.; Matter of Barnhill v. New York City Hous. Auth., 280 A.D.2d 339, 720 N.Y.S.2d 471 [2001] ).
The court had no basis for treating petitioner's motion to vacate the court's 2010 orders pursuant to CPLR 5015 as having been made under CPLR 317; the latter statute applies to judicial proceedings, not proceedings before an agency.
Petitioner's remaining contentions are either unpreserved or without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Evans v. New York City
...to the charges ( see Matter of Yarbough v. Franco, 95 N.Y.2d 342, 347, 717 N.Y.S.2d 79, 740 N.E.2d 224; Matter of Peña v. New York City Hous. Auth., 91 A.D.3d 581, 936 N.Y.S.2d 891; Matter of Barnhill v. New York City Hous. Auth., 280 A.D.2d 339, 720 N.Y.S.2d 471; Matter of Daniels v. Popol......
-
Station v. Swarts (In re Tony's Towing Serv., Inc.)
...charges ( see Matter of Evans v. New York City, 94 A.D.3d 885, 887, 942 N.Y.S.2d 143, citing Matter of Pena v. New York City Hous. Auth., 91 A.D.3d 581, 936 N.Y.S.2d 891;Matter of Dutta [ Commissioner of Labor ], 92 A.D.3d 1062, 1063, 937 N.Y.S.2d 739;Matter of Tribeca Med., P.C. v. New Yor......
-
Sterling Nat'l Bank v. American Elite Props. Inc.
... ... Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.Jan. 31, 2012 ... [937 N.Y.S.2d 222] Schlam Stone & ... City of New York, 123 A.D.2d 571, 572573, 507 N.Y.S.2d 146 ... ...