Matter of Edwards v New York City Hous. Auth.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Matter of Edwards v New York City Hous. Auth. 2012 NY Slip Op 31628(U) June 18, 2012 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 400560/12 Judge: Cynthia S. Kern 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. [* 1] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PART PRESENT: Juatlco Index Number : 400560/2012 EDWARDS, KENDELL vs. NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY SEQUENCE NUMBER : 001 INDeX NO. MOTION DATE MOTIONSEP. NO. ARTICLE 78 , worn mad on thlr motlon tonor The followlng paperr, numbered 1 to Notlce of MoUonlOrdor to Show Caurs Answerlng Affldavb -A1Rdmvlt6 - Exhlblta - Exhlblta Replylng Affldavlts IW 5 ) . IWd. IN W ) . Upon the foregolng papers, It Is ordsnd that thlo motion I6 Dated: I.CHECK ONE: 1d,x ..................................................................... 2. CHECK AS APPROPRIATE: 3. CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: .............. MOTION IS: ................................................ CASE DISPOSED 0 NON-FINAL DISPOSITION 0GRANTED r]DENIED 0GRANTED IN PART OTHER 0SETTLE ORDER 0SUBMIT ORDER DO NOT POST 0FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT 0REFERENCE [* 2] Petitioner, Index No. 400560/12 For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Laws and Rules, FILED -against- NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Respondent. Recitation, as required by CPLR 2219(a), of the papers considered in the review of this motion for : Papers Notice of Petition and Affidavits Annexed .................................... Answering Affidavits and Cross Motion ...................................... Replying Affidavits...................................................................... Exhibits.. .................................................................................... Numbered 1 2 3 4 Petitioner brings this petition seeking to reverse respondent the New York City Housing Authority s ( NYCHA ) decision dismissing his remaining-family-member grievance for failure to pay use and occupancy. NYCHA cross-moves to dismiss the petition. For the reasons set forth more fully below, the petition is dismissed. The relevant facts are as follows. Petitioner s mother, Flora Edwards, now deceased, used to live in apartment 11A at 535 Havemeyer Avenue in the Bronx, part of NYCHA s Castle Hill Houses. Ms. Edwards died in May 201 1. In conjunction with leasing public housing, Ms. [* 3] Edwards was required to fill out affidavits of income which included a section titled Family Composition. Petitioner was last included on Ms. Edwards affidavit as part of the family composition in 1980. He was not listed in the family composition on Ms.Edwards s nine most recent affidavits of income. In some of those years, he was listed as using the apartment as his mailing address. Ms. Edwards had also not requested or received written permission for petitioner to live with her in her household, as was required by NYCHA. After Ms. Edwards s death, petitioner s brother Dennis went to the development management office inquiring about a remaining-family-member claim. The manager informed him that he had 14 days to make such a claim and that he must be current in use and occupancy in order to pursue that claim. The manager gave Dennis a letter stating this as well. Dennis wrote a letter requesting a remaining-family-member grievance for himself and petitioner. The letter, dated September 26 201 1, stated that he and petitioner had resided in the apartment periodically for decades and that they returned to help her with daily tasks as her health declined. The property manager denied their grievances because Ms. Edwards had not requested or received the necessary permission for Dennis or petitioner to be included as members of her household. The District Office then denied the grievances as well because petitioner and Dennis failed to make any showing to support their claims and were not current in use and occupancy. At the time of the decision, in November 201 1, petitioner and Dennis owed use and occupancy arrears of $498.50 and have made no subsequent payments. The arrears have accrued and now total $1,667.73. Petitioner commenced this Article 78 proceeding on March 9,2012. He does not contest NYCHA s allegation that he has not paid use and occupancy during the pendency of his 2 [* 4] grievance. NYCHA allows a remaining family member to take over a deceased tenant s lease if the applicant who wishes to succeed to the lease as a tenant of record establishes that he: a) moved into the apartment lawfully (i.e. w s listed on the housing application a and authorized to reside in the apartment at initial move-in; w s born into/adopted a intohecame a ward of the authorized family; or permanently moved in with the written permission of development management); b) remained in the apartment continuously after lawful entry; c) remained in the apartment for not less than one year after the date of lawful entry and prior to the date the tenant of record vacates the apartment or dies (the one-year requirement ); and d) is otherwise eligible for public housing in accordance with the admissions standards for applicants. Management Manual, Chapter IV - Occupancy, Subdivision XII(A)-(B). To establish continuous occupancy and compliance with the one-year requirement, the occupant must be named on all affidavits of income from the time he lawfully enters the apartment until all tenantsAessees move out of the apartment or die. I . At XII(A)(2). Where a petitioner never obtained NYCHA s d written permission to reside in the apartment, NYCHA s determination that petitioner does not qualify as a remaining family member is based upon a fair interpretation of PYCHA s] rules and regulations and is not arbitrary and capricious. Collum v N Y C M , 93 A.D.3d 475 ( l d Dept 20 12). NYCHA also requires that a claimant must pay use and occupancy during the pendency of a grievance. Management Manual, Chapter XII(D)(2)(b). Failure to do so provides grounds for NYCHA to deny a remaining family member grievance. See Hawthorne v NCYHA, 8 1 A.D.3d 420 (latDept 201 1). NYCHA sregulations also provide that persons claiming they are a remaining family member must make a reasonable showing that they are in the apartment wt ih 3 [* 5] L the knowledge or permission of NYCHA and have continued to pay use and occupancy after the tenant s death. See Management Manual Chapter VII, Subdivision E(l)(b). The Court of Appeals has upheld this regulation stating that the obvious purpose of this rule is to screen out unfounded or untenable claims and thus ease the administrative burden and avoid additional delays for those waiting for public housing to become available. Henderson v Popolizio, 76 NY2d 972 (1990). No hearing is required where such a hearing would have been futile. See Hmthorne, 8 1 A.D.3d 420. In the instant case, the petition is dismissed because NYCHA s determination that petitioner failed to establish that he is entitled to take over his deceased mother s lease was not arbitrary and capricious. Petitioner had not been listed as a member of the deceased household for more than 30 years. He failed to establish that he had been a member of the household, that he had resided continuously in the apartment since he was a member of the household and that he had occupied the apartment for at least a year after lawful entry and prior to the deceased s death. Accordingly, NYCHA s determination was neither arbitrary nor capricious. See Collazo, 93 A.D.3d 475. Moreover, petitioner failed to pay use and occupancy during the pendency of the grievance, which is in itself a basis for denying his claim. See Henderson, 76 NY2d 972 (1990). Finally, NYCHA was not required to hold a hearing on this issue w any hearing would be futile. See Hawthorne, 8 1 A.D.3d 420. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. T i constitutes the decision a d o r d e r of the hs Enter: &ILED - J.S.C. 4 jUN 20 2032 NEW YORK COUNTY CLERKS OFFICE

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.