Matter of Cognata v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal

Annotate this Case
Matter of Cognata v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal 2011 NY Slip Op 01709 Decided on March 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 March 8, 2011
Andrias, J.P., Catterson, Moskowitz, Abdus-Salaam, Román, JJ.
4461 102285/09

[*1]In re Dominick Cognata, Petitioner-Appellant,

v

The New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, Respondent-Respondent.




Vincent J. Licata, New York, for appellant.
Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, New York (Robert C.
Weisz of counsel), for respondent.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Walter B. Tolub, J.), entered December 22, 2009, which denied the petition seeking to annul respondent's denial of petitioner's appeal from a housing company's rejection of his application for succession rights to an apartment, and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner did not have the right to succeed to the subject apartment since he could not make the necessary demonstration that the unit was his primary residence for the required time period (see Matter of Greichel v New York State Div. of Hous. and Community Renewal, 39 AD3d 421 [2007]). Although petitioner presented evidence of having resided in the apartment, he did not submit evidence in proper form, such as a notice of change or income affidavits, showing that he resided there in the two years preceding the tenant of record's death (see Matter of Martino v Southbridge Towers, Inc., 68 AD3d 412 [2009]).

We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions, including that respondent acted arbitrarily and capriciously in failing to adhere to precedent, and find them unavailing.

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

ENTERED: MARCH 8, 2011

CLERK

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.