Matter of Burns v New York City Hous. Auth.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Matter of Burns v New York City Hous. Auth. 2012 NY Slip Op 33001(U) December 14, 2012 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 401771/2012 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] 1 Index Number: 401771/2012 BURNS, LATOYA NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY Answering /#idw& Replying4Wm+ts K g 2 0 I, CHECK ONE: .................................................... 2. CHECK AS APPROPRIATE: ........................... 3. CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: MOT GRANTED UDENIED ............................... FlDUClA [* 2] SIJPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NY COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PAKT 4 Jn thc Matter of the Application of Latoya Burns, Index No.: 401771/12 DECISION, ORDER &tition er, AND JUDGMENT -crgainstPresent: HON. ARLENE Y. HLUTH New York City Housing Authority, Re$pondent. LJpon the loregoing papers, it is C31IDKRKtl and ADJUDGED that this Article 78 petition is dciiicd and the proceeding is dismissed. Tlic self-represented petitioner commciiccd this Articlc 78 proceeding challenging respondent New York City Housing Authority s (N Y CHA) determination denying her succession rights as a remaining family member to apt. 14 R at 1 I O East 99 Street in Manhattan which was lorrnerly leased to Vasco Scunpson, who petitioner claims is her grandfather. Mr. Smpson was the tenant of record of the subject apartment until his death on September 8,201 1. NYCHA opposes the petition. By decision dated July 6, 2012 , the Borough Manager, Rollin Deas, dismissed pctitioner s grievance on the grounds that shc failcd to make any showing to substantiate her remaining family member grievance. Specifically, Mr. Ilcas found that petitioner had not supplied documents proving that she was in fact Mr. Saiiipson s granddaughter, had not prcsented any proof that sbc was an autliorizcd occupant of the apartment, arid owed use and occupancy arrears o l $6$98.66. Because her grievance was dismissed, petitioner was not ciititled to appeal tlic Borough Ofiice s disposition to a hearing oft?cer (see exhibit P-District Grievance Summary). Page 1 of 4 [* 3] In paragraph 23 o l the Answer, NYCHA indicatcs that approximately t h e e months Iatcr, petitioner provided income documents and NYCHA retroactively adjusted petitioner s use and occLtpaiicy from $802.60 to $235.60 pcr inonth for the 10 month period from October 201 1 tlirough July 20 12. Thc credit of $6,852 reduced the amount of the use and occupancy arrears pctitioner owcd at tlic time ofMr. Deas s decision to $1,188.66. Standard of Kcvicw 1 11~ ( [jludicial review oK an administrative determination is confined to the facts and record adduccd before the agency . (Mulfcrof Yurhough v Franco, 95 NY2d 342, 347 120001, quoling Mutter qf b anelli v New York City C, onciliulion d Appcds Bourd, 90 hD2d 756 [ 1st Dept 19821). The reviewing court may not substitutc its judgment for that of the agency s determination but must decidc if the agency s dccision is supported on any reasonable basis. (Mdftlr of C k m q - C en LStokge C-;7. v Board of Klcctions of fheC ily c$New York, 98 A112d 635, 636 I I st I3cpt 19831). Once the court finds that a rational basis exists lor the agency s determination, then tlic court s rcvicw i s ended. (Mu//crof Sullivan ( h n t y Hurness Xucing A,c,vociu/iun, c . v Glnssw, 30 NY2d 269, 277-278 119721). The court niay only declare an h agency s determination arbitrary and capricious if the court finds that there is no rational basis for tlic agcncy s determination. (Mattar of l ell v Hourd uf Ed~,icafion, NY2d 222, 23 1 [ 19741). 34 I Icrc, petitioner has not demonstrated that Mr. Deas s determination was arbilrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. NYCI [A s rules (NYCHA s Management Manual, ch VTT, ij IV [E] 11 1 Icl 121) require that usc and occuipancy be up-to-datc as a condition precedent to pursuing a rcmaining fhniily member status grievance (also set forth in the grievance Page2of 4 [* 4] procedures instructions annexed as exhibit ;1 to answer). As pctitioncr admits that she had failed . to pay all the use and occupancy due, it was rational and rcasonable for Mr. Tieas to dismiss the grievancc, and that determination was not ;m abusc of NYCl [A s discretion. Hmv/home v New Ywlc C ity Hous. Auth., 8 1 AD3d 420,420-21 ( I st l k p t 201 1) (NYCHA s rulc rcquires continued payment of use and occupancy as ii conditioii precedent to comnienccimcnt of a grievancc on eiititlcniciit to status as a remaining hmily rncrnber; petitioner s acknowledgment that he owed use and occupancy provided grounds for NYCflA s determination). Additioiially, petitioncr docs not dispute that thc tcnant of record never requestcd or rcceived writtcii permission from NYCHA for pctitjoner join his household. Petitioner s claim that Mr. Kaniel, thc housing niaiiagcr knew she residing iii the apartmcnt is unavailing. Izven if. nianagemciit had knew shc was living there, NYCHA is not estopped h m dcnying petitioner reniaiiiing laniily iiicmher status to an unauthorized occupant. Rrxhjnu v Xhcu, -- AD3d _, 2012 N Y Slip Op. 08259 (1 Dcpt Tkc. 4, 2012). Finally, while petitioner states that slic has f h n c i a l diffhlties, mciital and physical disabilities, ~ l n d iio place to go if she is evicted froin this apartment (pet., para. 3), this Court has lacks the autliority to consider mitigating circumstaiiccs or potential hardship as a basis fbr annulling NYC HA s detcnnjnation. %e (&man v NI L HA, 85 A1Xd 5 14, 925 NYS2d 59 (1 st 13cpt 20 11 ). Page 3 of 4 [* 5] Accordingly, it is ORDERED a d ADJUDGED that this Article 78 petition is dciiied and the proceeding is dismisscd. This is tlic Decision, Order and Judgment 01 Court. the 13ated: December\! 2012 New York, New York HON. ARLENE P. BJ.,UTH, 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.