Matter of Perez v New York City Hous. Auth.

Matter of Matter of Perez v New York City Hous. Auth. 2012 NY Slip Op 07199 Decided on October 25, 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 October 25, 2012
Gonzalez, P.J., Moskowitz, Acosta, Freedman, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
8381 402191/11

[*1]In re Magali Perez, Petitioner-Appellant,

v

New York City Housing Authority, Respondent-Respondent.




Magali Perez, appellant pro se.
Kelly D. MacNeal, New York (Andrew M. Lupin of counsel),
for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alexander W. Hunter, J.), entered February 23, 2012, denying the petition to annul respondent's determination, which denied petitioner succession rights to the subject apartment as a remaining family member, and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent's determination has a rational basis. The evidence shows that petitioner did not become an authorized occupant of her grandmother's apartment prior to the latter's death in February 2007 (see Matter of Valentin v New York City Hous. Auth., 72 AD3d 486 [1st Dept 2010]). Even if the grandmother's Permanent Permission Request to add petitioner and petitioner's daughter to her family composition had not been denied, petitioner would still have been ineligible for remaining-family-member status, since the request was submitted only weeks before the grandmother died and petitioner would not have satisfied the one-year continuous authorized occupancy requirement (see Matter of Daniels v New York City Hous. Auth., 66 AD3d 579 [1st Dept 2009]).

Contrary to petitioner's contention, respondent did not implicitly approve of her residence in the apartment. A governmental agency cannot be estopped from discharging its statutory duties when a claimant does not meet the eligibility requirements for succession rights to the apartment, even if the managing agent acquiesced in petitioner's occupancy (see Matter of Schorr v New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. and Dev., 10 NY3d 776 [2008]; Taylor v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 73 AD3d 634 [1st Dept 2010]). Moreover, petitioner's mental health and her status as a single parent whose daughter is asthmatic are mitigating factors and hardships that the hearing officer was not required to consider (see Matter of Fermin v New York City Hous. Auth., 67 AD3d 433 [1st Dept 2009]). Nor did the payment of [*2]rent by petitioner confer succession rights on her (see Matter of Adler v New York City Hous. Auth., 95 AD3d 694 [1st Dept 2011]).

We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

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

ENTERED: OCTOBER 25, 2012

CLERK