New York City Hous. Auth. v Richardson

[*1] New York City Hous. Auth. v Richardson 2010 NY Slip Op 51923(U) [29 Misc 3d 133(A)] Decided on November 10, 2010 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on November 10, 2010
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Shulman, Hunter, Jr., JJ
570499/10.

New York City Housing Authority, Petitioner-Respondent,

against

John Richardson, Respondent-Appellant.

Respondent John Richardson appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Gerald Lebovits, J.), dated April 5, 2010, which denied his motion to vacate his default in opposing petitioner's prior motion for summary judgment in a holdover summary proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Order (Gerald Lebovits, J.), dated April 5, 2010, affirmed, without costs.

Respondent-appellant, who failed to formally oppose petitioner New York City Housing Authority's motion for summary judgment on its licensee holdover petition, properly sought relief pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) (see M & C Bros., Inc. v Torum, 75 AD3d 869 [2010]). However, as Civil Court properly concluded, respondent is not entitled to continued possession of the apartment as a "remaining family member" following the transfer of his brother to another Housing Authority apartment. Under the controlling Housing Authority regulations, an occupant of a Housing Authority apartment who remains in the original apartment when a tenant of record transfers to another agency apartment is not entitled to a lease as a remaining family member (see New York City Housing Authority Management Manual, ch. VII, [E][1][b][4][a]; New York City Housing Auth. v Broome, NYLJ July 14, 1998, at 25, col 1 [App Term, 1st Dept]). "Were the rule otherwise, a single tenant family could retain multiple apartments where one member of the household requests a transfer" (see New York City Housing Authority v Broome, supra). Since respondent lacked a potentially meritorious defense to petitioner's motion for summary judgment, his motion to vacate his default in opposing petitioner's motion was properly denied (see Ogunbemi v New York City Hous. Auth., 65 AD3d 944 [2009]; St. Rose v McMorrow, 43 AD3d 1146 [2007]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: November 10, 2010