Matter of Lofton v New York City Hous. Auth.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Matter of Lofton v New York City Hous. Auth. 2012 NY Slip Op 31311(U) May 9, 2012 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: 403131/11 Judge: Arlene P. Bluth Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. SCANNED ON 511712012 [* 1] I SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY HQN, ARLEN6 PaBLUTH PRESENT: Jusqke . . -. _ . I 1 Index Number 4 0 3 1 3 1 / 2 m LOFTON, HERBERT vs. NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY SEQUENCE NUMBER : 001 ARTICLE78 1 ' ~ INDEX NO. 4 I MOTION DATE I MOTION SEQ. NO. , were read on tbls motion tolfor to Show Cause - Affldavlts Notlee of &&/Order ;,,,,1; I ' , , ..................................................................... 2. CHECK AS APPROPRIATE: ........................... IN I o ( s ) . I / is 1 d MOTION I : S ................................................ &hJn 1, h h IRe 7f L - Exhlbltq Upon the foregolng papem, It Is ordered that this& 3. CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: , , , " I I , The followlng paperg, numbbred 1 tp 1. CHECK ONE: 1, CASE DISPOSED 17GRANTED 0DENIED 0SETTLE ORDER DO NOT POST 0 NON-FINAL DISPOSITION 0GRANTED IN PART 0OTHER 0SUBMIT ORDER FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE I , [* 2] STJl REMl~COIJRT OF THIC STATE OF N Y COlJNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 4 In flit Matter of Ihc Application of I lerbcrl I,ofton, I c~titiorrer, lridex No.: 403131/1J DECISION, ORDEH AN 1) ,J I I L)C; M EN T -qquiwtNcw YoI k C ity Ho us iiig Aut ho ri ly , Kesyon clrnt. I Jpon the Ibregoing papers, it is OIWERED and AJ) I rcscnt: HUN. ARLENE P. BLIJTH that this Article 78 petition is clciiied a i d tlic pi-occcding is dismissed. Petilionci., \~Yh(3 is rcprcscntiiig himsell; coinmenccd this Articlc 78 proceeding challcngiiig i~cspoiidcntNcw Yi)rli Cily Housing Autliority s (NY(:I-IA) determination of status icr [* 3] aFi: in i.rpIy, swoui to March 2 1 , 20 12, para. 2). Ncvci-thclcss, petilioner asscrts [hat he is entitled to sirccwd to his mo[lier s public Iio~ising lease due lo mitigating cjr-c[rmstances,spccifically, her declining h e a l t h a nd mcntal impairnient compromised her abilily to lblluw tlmugh with NYC I IA to add iiic to thc Ic3sc . I I C further claims thal the hearing oflicer s fiilLire to take into accoiini [his] mother s condition was arbitrary and capricious (Petition, para. 3 ) , l licIicnring officer s deicrniinatioii that petitioner is not amply supported by thc testimony ~ i c cvitiuncc: prcscntcd I ;i remaining ktmily inember was at tlic Imt-iiig, aiid set forth i n licr .luly 18, 201 I drcision. At the Iicat-iiig, N Y C l IA iiilrodii~ud, in7/crd i l r , Ms. 1,oftoii s nilnun1 incornc dlidavits Ibr 2000 through 3008 wherein she allirmativcly stated that slic was tlic sole occupant 01. the iipai-tment fbr cach of thmc years. I ctilioner tcstiticd, con cr.oss-cxamitiatiori, that tie :iss i5 t c (1 I 1 i s i c o ~ i1-1 IC t i iig i I 1i(-)t I er ii 1 (110se ann iial i illid avi t s . Page 2 of 4 [* 4] c~ociiiriciitationto Mariagcmenl s o that he cotrld be added l o his niothcr s Iivuscliold, that his iiiotlicr did iiot t-ctaiii copics o f this d~)cirm~nli~tioii, that neither lie ~ i o his niotlier received aiid r ; i ~ yrcspotise horn Mnnagcrricnt. Aftcr considering all tlic testimony, h e hearing oflicer specifically l oiincl t1i:il pclilioner hiled to esiiiblish llial eiilier lie o r h i s iiiotlicr requcstcd o r Page 3 of 4 [* 5] Ilnscd 017 the evidence presented at tlic Iicaring, it is uudisputcd that petitioner did not lawliilly eii~cl- apu'tmciit by (:,bt:iining tlit: writlen permissiori oi'NYC'I IA and that Ms. LoIlon tlic clitl not cvcii list petitioner ;IS;iii occupant of tlic npartii~cnt IICI' 2000 tliroiigli 2008 inccmc oil allidavils. Accordingly, NYC ' I 1A's ckteriiiination denying petitionc-1-rciiiaiiiing fiimily member L):1tetl: Mily 0 , 1 0 1 2 New York, Ncw York / H O N . ARLENK 1'. BLkJ'I'H, JSC' _>.-.-.- Page 4 of 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.