Matter of Andrews v New York City Hous. Auth.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Matter of Andrews v New York City Hous. Auth. 2012 NY Slip Op 31797(U) June 26, 2012 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: 400231/12 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. [* 1] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY 4 ,/ PART Justice MOTION SEQ. NO. The following papers, numbered Ito 2- ,were read on this motlon tolfor Notice of ~ I O r d e to Show Cause - Affldavlts r bb - e5 m5 O b . 1 A, - Exhibits INo(?). INo(s). IN O W . - Exhlblts Replylng Affldavltfc 0 k . t I L GmJ-5s.m*- Upon the foregolng papers, It is ordered that thls UNFILED JUDGMENT This judgment has nql been entered bv the Countv Clerk and notice of entry cannot be served based hereon. To obtain entry, counsel or authorized representative must appear in person at the Judgment Clerk's Desk (Room 2 141E), I.CHECK ONE: ..................................................................... [pb CASE DISPOSED 2. CHECK AS APPROPRIATE: .......................... .MOTION IS: 0GRANTED 3. CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: ................................................ 1 DENIED 0SElTLE ORDER DO NOT POST 0 NON-FIWAL DISPOSITION 0GRANTED IN PART 0OTHER 0SUBMIT ORDER 0FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE [* 2] SUPIIIZMI~:COURT OF THE STATE O F NY COUNTY OF NEW YOLIK: PAK I 4 In the Mattcr of Ihc Application of Micllilcl A I I ~ I T W S , Index No.: 400231/12 DEC~ISION, ORDER A N D ,JUDGMENT Petitioiier, -agniiist- Pr-rscnt: HON. ARLENE P. IjLUTH Pctitioncr, who is self-rcjnrescntccl, coiiinieiiced this Article 7X proceeding 10 revcrsc respondent New York C ity Housing Authority s ( NYC I-IA )determination dated 1Icccmber 22, 20 I O which dismissed his Ten-iaining Ilunily incriiber gricvnrice. NY(:I 1A cross-iiioves to dismiss tlic proceeding on several groiiiids, including that it is time-barrccl. b or tlic reasons set forth bclow, NYC IJA s cross-motion is granted, tlic petition is del-iicd and the proceeding is dismissed, On 1)ecembcr 22,201 0,aficr meeting with petitiorm, NYCHA s 13orough Manager dismissed pctitioncr s remaining fiiiiiily iiiciii bcr grievance (cch J). That dctermiixition, the onepage District Summary (.hicvarice, stated that petitioricr s mothei. was the tenant of record of the suhject apiirtn-iciit (aparlnienl 973 at 1536 I .csington Avenuc in Manhaltan) until her death 011 April 21 . 20 IO. I[ liirlhci- stated thal NYC I lA s lile sliowccl thnt inanngen?ent iievcr granled permission i or pclilioiicr. lo Join the liouschold, and ns such, he was an unauthorizcd occupant of the qxtrtiiiciit. Lind not entitled to s~icccccl his motlicr s public housing lease. Fiiidly, the to clctcrmiiiation iiutccl that pctitiuner was not cwciit w i h the payincnt ol use arid occupmcy. [* 3] Significanlly, NYCI IA s 13urough Manngcr chcckcd the bux on the 1)istrict Sutnrnaly Grievance that tlic grievaiicc was dismissed on tlic gi-ourids t-hat petitioner failed to make any showing to sulxtiinhtc his claiiii, T3ecniisc tlic grievance WBS dismissed, tlic form instructed the Mariagcr to c L c ~ o s s t note to grievant in tlic lmx below . That note informed a gricvant that ou Iic/slie co~ilcl q u c s t a 11e:iring. Howcvcr, ~ri.ic1t.r circmislanccs presented here, that langiiage r the was crosscd out. 1)ctitioiicr had no liirlhcr riglit oi. ;ipped to nothing iii ~ l i c Dislricl : I hearing officcr, ar1d there was C~ricv~ii~cc Summiry that told pctitioner lie had such right; accordingly, the 1)ccembcr 22,301 0 determiriation is NYC HA s filial dctcr-minatiuri. l hcfour month statutc of Iirl-iitatioiisgoverning Article 78 proceedings which clialIcrigc an adiiiiiiisti-alive dctcrniilistioii begins to ruii o n h e dnte the detcrmiriation becomes final and binding ~ i p o I ihy t pclilioncr, which is the chic pctitioncr receives iiolicc of thc decision, SLY CPLR $2 I 7 I 1; M ~ I I O I . ( c)f n.k tt.i,i)~jli/nr?Adir,sriim /listou.ic llis/rii:/ ( h l l i i i o n v l l c Montchello, 20AD;d 28, 790 NYS2d 64 (1st Ucpt 2005). I n support ul its cross-motion, NYCI-IA subiiiits thc nrlidavil oi Eiieida Itcvcron, NYC I IA s 13orougli Manager wlio prepnrccl tlic Dislricl Summary Grievance and oversaw its u miiiling. Ms. 1Zt vci.oii states t1i;il in ;~ccord;iiiccwith l x oflice s rcgulnr husiness pruclice, one copy of tlic District Suminat-y Grievance was scnt by regular mail to Harbara Rcddick (Deceased) (TCJIC) and Michael Ariclrcws to tlic sulject :rpartmcnt niid the other by cortificd inailing 117007 071 0 0004 5 1x8 5869 (esh 2 ) t o petitioner at the sub.jcct apartinent. Annexcd 3 s cxliihit 3 to Ms. I ~ c v c r o i:illidavit i s tlie L1SPS.com I rack and C onlirm printout for this item which shows tlic ~ ~ uiivclopc conliiiiiiiig tlic Jlistricl Siimmary Gricvancc WI ;S clelivercd on JanLinl-y 7, 201 I . [* 4] that pctitioricr rcccivcd il. I herei ol-c,the four moiitli stalute of Iiriiilalioiis to coiiinience ai1 Article 78 proccccliiig cliallciiging this clelcriiiiiiation expired loirr months a t h January 7, 20 1 1 which woiilCi bc on May 7, 20 I 1 . I etilioncr did not coriinienced this Articlc 78 proceeding until Janirary 3 0 , 2012, \wlicn lie liled his petition, iiiore h i i eight (8) iiiontlis alter the statutc olliiiiitaliow cxpiretl. 111 11is 1 c t i i uii, pet j ti (1) I i c r a i i i i i Iled receipt o f t I 1c I I ist r i c 1 C; r i e va ri cc S u ni iiiary ( on 1 1 2 / 2 2 ]0 Ms. Eneida Ilcvcrori dismissed ine aiid said slic can riot lielp inc. So I put in the 3 stcp a l 250 Hiuadway and NYC I I A iolcl riie i l woiild come i n the mail , pet, para. 3). 1 0 the extent that petiliuner dleges that a NY( 1 IA cmployce iiiisiriforriicci hiin about NYCI IA s practices arid he relied upoil s d i slatciiicnts, it is no1 ; basis for reversing NYC I-IA s 1)eccmber 22, 201 0 i dctcrmination, as an :igt.ncy canriot I estopped li-om invoking its regulations; scc 7uyIor v New x pctitioncr s claiiiis arc vagile ancl lack dctai I ; tic does no( say who allcgcdly made [he statcmcnl, or wlic~rc wlicii it was mriclc. Most in-iportmt of all, il is clear t h a t pctitioiicr could not liavc c)r rcmoii:ihly d i e d oti such slatemelit bccausc tlic scctioii nbout rcqucsting 3 formal hearing was crossed out on the District Grievaiicc Sunimary becausc pctitionci. had no lurllier riglit of an 2, I lic ( oiirt iioles h i t oii Scptciiibcr 7, 201 I , pcljtioncr sigl-icd a stipulalion in llousiiig Cuiirt wherein Iic ( 1 ) C T ) I I S C I ~ LtoC(he entry o f a f i n d jiiclgiiienl ol possessim in favor ol the ~ ~ NY(. I I A and (2) agreed to vacatc the premises c)ii 01- bel-brc 2/29/12, Significanlly, thc stip~rl::iti~)n provided that it was without prc-judicc to [pctitiuner] liling a11Article 78 proceecting . This iiicant lliat as of September 7, 201 I, petitioner h e w or should liavc linown that I K \.yodd was no[ enlitled to a lical-iiig and could only attempt to challenge the clenial of h i s rciiiaiiiiiig f.;iniily iiiember gr icvnncc by liling an Article 78 piwxeding. He still waitcd more lhan h i r r 11ic)rc~ i i ~ ) i i t l i s bring this proceeding. to Page 3 of 4 [* 5] A cc o r d i 11g I y , bc c au s c pc t i t i CI 1.1c 1- co I 11iiienced t 1 ii s proceed i n g t o ch a11enge N YCHA s I.-)islrict Siiminary Gricvniicc ~1.1icr l i c ~ fc7~itmonth statute ol limitiirions had expired, it is UNFILED JUDGMENT This iudqrnent has not k e n c:ntered b y the County Clerk 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.