Matter of Weisman v New York City Hous. Auth.

Matter of Matter of Weisman v New York City Hous. Auth. 2012 NY Slip Op 00412 Decided on January 24, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department 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.
6606 402362/10

[*1]In re Jazmine Weisman, et al., Petitioners-Appellants,

v

New York City Housing Authority, Respondent-Respondent.




Jazmine Weisman, appellant pro se.
Jose De La Cruz, appellant pro se.
Sonya M. Kaloyanides, New York (Melissa Renwick of
counsel), for respondent.

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 [*2]

CLERK