Matter of Hawthorne v New York City Hous. Auth.

Matter of Hawthorne v New York City Hous. Auth. 2011 NY Slip Op 00569 Decided on February 1, 2011 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on February 1, 2011
Andrias, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
4164 402781/09

[*1]In re Kriss Hawthorne, Petitioner-Appellant,

v

New York City Housing Authority, Respondent-Respondent.




Kriss Hawthorne, appellant pro se.
Sonya M. Kaloyanides, New York (Seth E. Kramer of counsel),
for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered January 14, 2010, which granted the cross motion of respondent New York City Housing Authority pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) and dismissed the petition challenging respondent's determination that petitioner was not entitled to a "remaining family member" grievance hearing, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since respondent Housing Authority's rule (New York City Housing Authority Housing Management Manual, ch VII, § E [1][c][2]) requires continued payment of use and occupancy as a condition precedent to commencement of a grievance on entitlement to status as a remaining family member, petitioner's acknowledgment that he had failed to pay use and occupancy charges provided grounds for respondent's determination (see Garcia v Franco, 248 AD2d 263, 264-265 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 813 [1998]).

Additionally, petitioner's relationship, as godson to the deceased tenant, is not within the Housing Authority's category of immediate relatives who are able to obtain permanent permission to occupy an apartment and succeed to a deceased tenant's lease (see New York City Housing Authority Housing Management Manual, IV [B]). There is no provision for permitting a tenant's godson to succeed to a lease; thus, the denial of petitioner's grievance without a hearing was not arbitrary and capricious (see Goldman v New York City Hous. Auth., 63 AD3d 532 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 701 [2010]).

Finally, Housing Authority policy requires a tenant to make a written request to the manager to have a relative or other family member become either a legally authorized permanent household member or a co-tenant, a policy consistently enforced by this Court (see e.g. Edwards v New York City Hous. Auth., 67 AD3d 441 [2009]). Here, the deceased tenant did not obtain written permission to add petitioner to the household, and he was not listed on the affidavits of income or the tenant data
summary. Accordingly, the court properly dismissed the petition, as any hearing would have been futile.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. [*2]

ENTERED: FEBRUARY 1, 2011

CLERK