Matter of Sanders v New York City Hous. Auth.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Matter of Sanders v New York City Hous. Auth. 2012 NY Slip Op 31800(U) July 2, 2012 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: 400667/12 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] SCANNED ON 711012012 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY Justice PART -2- ~~ 1 I I 1 Index Number 400667/2012 SANDERS, JOANN INDEX NO. vs LOTION DATE NYC HOUSING AUHTORITY SEQUENCE NUMBER : 001 MOTION sEa. NO. ARTICLE 78 Ito 3- ,were read on this motion tolfor - Exhibits - Exhib INo(a). I INo(8). > Upon the foregolng papem, it is ordered that thl8 motlon W A DECIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACCOMPANYING DEClSlONlORDER UNFllED JUDGMENT This judgment has not been entered by the County Clerk and notice af entry rannot be served based hereon. To Main entry. m n s e l or airlhorized representative must appear in p e r w ~ the Judgment Clerk's Desk ( R m at 4410). NON-FINAL DISPOSITION ..................................................................... -E4CASE DISPOSED OTHER 0DENIED 0GRANTED IN PART CHECK AS APPROPRIATE: ........................... MOTION IS: 0GRANTED nSUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: ................................................ 0SETTLE ORDER 0DO NOT POST FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT [7 REFERENCE 1. CHECK ONE: 2. 3. .. . [* 2] SUPREMIC C OUII I OF THlC STATE OF NY C OlINTY OF NEW YOKK: PAR l 4 In tlic Matter of I h c Application of Joa 1111 S an (1 crs, l etitioticr, Index Nu.: 400667/12 DECTSION, ORDER AN 13 .JUDGMlCN I - q a imt- New York City I lousing Authority, 1 1-uscnt:I ION. ARLENE 1 . lIIJIJTH Kiy1c l dell ts. [* 3] fiimi ly iiic~iil~cr stntw. L3ot:li tlic I roperty Manager and the Borough Mnnagcr denied petilioner s lo grievance because managcmcnl never graritecl petitioner pcri~~issioii join her mother s Iicouscliold. I lic Property Mimagcr also notcd that petilioner, who is not a sciiior citizen, was riot eligible to I-cccivc ; lcase in tlic suhjcct sciiiors-oiily building. i Less t1i;iii one iiionlli afler the stipulalion was sigiiccl, thc propcrty ni:uiager iiotiijcd pctitioiicr that slic iiiust subinit a rcqucs~ initiale her second remaining L-it-riily mcnibcr 10 gricvaiicc witlijii 14 dxys: the Doi.or.ig11 Mnnagcr ofl ci.cd pctitioner an opporlunity to subiiiit iiiid/c)r rccl[wt a iiicctiiig within I O busincss clays. L>t.spitctl-icsc iidditiuiial c1oc~iineiita.tion mtilicatioiis, pctitioiicr toc-)lc 11c)action. H y District C;rievance Summary cialed April 29, 20 10, tllc L3orougli Manager cleniecl Iicr grievance. The lbrm cold petitioner how to rcqucst a hearing if she Page 2 of 5 [* 4] M e r her scconil Artic,lc 78 proceeding was clisinissccl, pctitioiicr submitted ;a11 appl icatioii to open her del~:itill,which was granlccl, alicl pctitioiicr was given a iicw Iiwriiig date-Novcinbcr 16, 201 1 . I-Iowevcr, she. failccl t o appear (311 tliis chtc, cliicl once again tlic Iicar-iiig olliccr dismissed hcr- gr-icvniicc 011 cleliidt. On lkcciiiber 7, 20 I I N YCI lA s t3o;itd approved tlic hcar-ing officcr s I d isiiii ssal . I- ctitioiicr 1in.s i i o t qJpliecl to open her second default; instond slic cwiiiiicnccd tliis third Articlc 7X pi occcdii-ig,cliiiming that NYC HA did not notiiy hcr (ofthis Iicar-iiig date in 8 timely Illanllel . Page 3 of 5 [* 5] [* 6] L);lterl:,Jdy 2, 2012 Ncw York, New York 141B). Page5of 5

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.