Matter of Ruiz v New York City Hous. Auth.

Matter of Ruiz v New York City Hous. Auth. 2011 NY Slip Op 00737 Decided on February 8, 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 8, 2011
Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
4221 100672/09

[*1]In re Linda Ruiz, Petitioner-Appellant,

v

New York City Housing Authority, Respondent-Respondent.




Proskauer Rose LLP, New York (Jonathan G. Ellison of
counsel), for appellant.
Sonya M. Kaloyanides, New York (Laura R. Bellrose of
counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered November 10, 2009, denying the petition to annul respondent's determination, dated November 26, 2008, which denied petitioner succession rights as a remaining family member to the apartment formerly leased to her deceased brother, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner admits that she does not qualify as a remaining family member for purposes of succession rights to her deceased brother's apartment because, contrary to respondent's policies, she never received written consent to reside in the apartment and did not live there for more than one year prior to her brother's death. Instead, she claims that "special circumstances," such as verbal assurances from an employee of respondent that she could remain in the subject apartment, obviated her need to comply with those policies. However, the hearing officer did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in concluding that petitioner failed to establish that respondent waived its right to insist on strict compliance with its policies (see Torres v New York City Housing Authority (40 AD3d 328 [2007]).

Moreover, the record belies petitioner's contention that the hearing officer failed to consider the evidence of her alleged special circumstances. In her decision, the hearing officer expressly concluded that "[petitioner's] reliance upon the interpretation of information gathered through telephone conversations does "not negate the responsibility of the Tenant to secure the written approval of management prior to adding anyone to the household." We find therefore [*2]that the hearing officer considered the evidence before her and that the determination has a rational basis (see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 231 [1974]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: FEBRUARY 8, 2011

CLERK