Matter of Moore v City of N.Y.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Matter of Moore v City of N.Y. 2013 NY Slip Op 30164(U) January 23, 2013 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 102874/12 Judge: Peter H. Moulton 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 113012013 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK - NEW YORK COUNTY Justice F T 4 L . , + MOTION L. E L+,tTk. CAL. NO. CC , $ L The following papers, numbered 1 to .'r were read on this motion to/for PAPERS Notice of Motion/ Order to Show Cause - Affidavits Answering Affidavits NUMBERED - Exhibits ... - Exhibits Replying Affidavits r] Yes Cross-Motion: b'No Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that this matien r t i . " )-) <7--@ & - - l e d A r i / J. S. C. Check one: FINAL DISPOSITION CT] NON-FINAL DISPOSITION 0 DO NOT POST 0 REFERENCE 0 SUBMIT ORDER/ JUDG. 0 SETTLE ORDER/ JUDG. Check if appropriate: [* 2] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 40 B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -X In the Matter of the Application of Index No. 102874/12 HENRY MOORE, Petitioner, -against- A' CITY OF NEW YORK, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT, __ --... ESPLANADE GARDENS - - - - - * - - - ~f&$n\.L - - - - - PETER H. MOULTON, J . S . C . : I - - - - - zofi -X ;IAN 2 9 4 L Petitioner Henry Moore proceeding to vacate the decision by respondent Division of Housing Preservation and Development determination by (\'HPD") , dated September administrative hearing 1, 2010 , officer and the Frances Lippa ("Lippa") dated February 15, 2012, denying him succession rights , to his grandmother's Brooklyn cooperative apartment. grandmother died October 29, 2005. Petitioner's Petitioner first appeared on the annual income affidavits a f t e r Ms. Moore's death. Facts Respondent Esplanade Gardens ('Esplanade" ) is an Article I1 limited-profit housing company organized under.the New York State Private Housing Finance Law (the "Mitchell-Lama Law"). dated September 1, 2010, HPD notified petitioner By letter of certain [* 3] deficiencies in his request to be added to his grandmother's stock certificate. that Henry apartment in The deficiencies included lack of "[vlerification Moore petitioner's Moore resided at together this Accordingly, HPD found that it could not approve request, further proof. (2003 but allowed petitioner time to submit By letter dated March 2 8 , 2011, Esplanade advised petitioner that his residency Susie and 2004 ( e . g . , W-2 forms, certified tax return, 2003 bills, etc.) .'I1 and & claim was denied for lack of "Proof of 2004) and relationship between Henry Moore and shareholder Susie Moore (deceased as of 10/29/05)." Petitioner filed a timely appeal. In connection with the appeal, Lippa advised petitioner, in a letter dated May 5, 2011, that the controlling regulation required that petitioner be included on all relevant income affidavits signed after February 1, 2003.2 He further advised petitioner that he could submit documents, by June 15, 2011, establishing his coresidency with Ms. Moore, for the two year period prior to her death. The letter enclosed a copy of HPD's rules regarding 'HPD should have advised petitioner that the relevant period also included 2005, but the failure to do so is not fatal in light of the fact that petitioner received subsequent notices of the relevant time period, and does not appear to have been mislead by such failure. 'Prior to that date, t h e regulation permitted the family member to r e b u t the presumption that the family member d i d not live in the apartment for the relevant time period if that member did not appear on the relevant income affidavit. 2 [* 4] succession rights and a list of suggested documentation. The letter advised petitioner that he should submit as many of the listed documents as you can, sinc this is your only opportunity to present your succession rights claim f o r review. The list referred to documents which included Certified New York State Tax returns. The list did not suggest the submission of affidavits or of federal income tax returns, but provided that You may submit any other documents that you believe primary residence. . will prove your By separate letter dated May 5, 2011, Lippa also advised Tanya Owens, Esq. of Kagan Lubric Lepper Lewis Gold Colbert LLP (with a copy to petitioner & , of petitioner s right to submit further documents to Lippa. Petitioner, pro se, suljrnitted documents by letter dated June If, 2011. Most documents were outside of the relevant period of co-residency (October 29, 2003 to October 29, 2 0 0 5 ) documents related the relevant time period. an undated 2003 and only two Petitioner submitted 1040 income tax return, signed by the preparer Newkirk Associates, which was not certified. Petitioner also submitted an interim New York State driving permit which was issued on March 1, 2001 and expired on February 11, 2006. In his decision dated February 15, 2012, Lippa petitioner s appeal and issued a Certificate of Eviction. denied Lippa found that there was no evidence that the petitioner was on the income affidavits during the period of October 29, 2003 to October 3 [* 5] He further found a lack of proof that petitioner co- 29, 2 0 0 5 . 3 resided with Ms. Moore. He noted submitted for the relevant period that were the only (1) the federal tax return, which was not certified, and documents undated (2) 2003 the interim permit, which was issued in 2001. Discussion Respondent HPD determine the vested with exclusive jurisdiction to 's i remaining-family-member claim in city-aided Mitchell-Lama housing" (Lindsav Park Hous. Corp. v G r a n t , 190 Misc 2d 777, 777 [2001]). To succeed to the leasehold rights of a Mitchell-Lama apartment, the petitioner bears the burden of showing that he or she (1) is a member of the tenant's family; (2) if not a senior citizen or disabled, resided with the tenant in the apartment as a primary residence for a period of not less than two years; and ( 3 ) if not a senior citizen or disabled, was listed on the income affidavits for at least the two consecutive annual reporting periods prior to the tenant's vacature of the apartment (28 RCNY S Corp., 3-02[p] [ 3 ] ; see, Matter of Shupack 203 AD2d 134 119941). v Dayton Towers The submission of income affidavits identifying the petitioner as a resident does not, in and of itself, establish the existence of succession rights as a matter 3Petitioner does not dispute that he did not appear on the 2003 and 2005 income affidavits, nor that the tenant's file did not include the 2004 income affidavits. 4 [* 6] of law (Matter of Pietropolo v New York C i t y Dept. Preserv. & Dev., 39 AD3d 4 0 6 , 406,407 0. [Ist Dept 2 0 0 7 1 ) . Hous . Rather, HPD may also rely upon "the lack of objective documentary evidence supporting petitioner s claim" to residency (Hochhauser v HPD, 48 AD3d 2 8 8 [lst Dept 2 0 0 8 1 ) . In reviewing the determination of an agency such as HPD, the Court must consider whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an e r r o r of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion 7803131; M a t t e r of Windsor Place Corp. v S t a t e D i v . Community Renewal, 19901). An Off. of Rent A d m i n . , 1 6 1 AD2d 279 (see CPLR of Hous. & [lst Dept action is arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion, when the action is taken "without sound basis i n reason and . . . without regard to the facts" (Matter of Pel1 v Board of Educ. of Union Free School D i s t . No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale Mamaroneck, Weschester County, 3 4 N Y 2 d 2 2 2 , 2 3 1 ' [ 1 9 7 4 ] ) . & The court may not overrule the agency merely because it finds that the factual record could support a different conclusion ( s e e Matter of West V i l . A s s o c . v D i v . of Hous. 112 [lst Dept 2 0 0 0 1 ) . & Community Renewal, 277 m 2 d 111, Generally, the court may not consider evidence which was not initially presented to the agency (see Belok v New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. Dept 20111 [petitioner's submission of affidavit with his article 7 8 & Dev., a 8 9 AD3d 579 copy of an [lst income petition was' unavailing because 5 [* 7] review of an agency determination is limited to the facts and record adduced before the agency]). Lippa's decision is not arbitrary and capricious in light of the lack of proof of petitioner's co-residency with Ms. Moore and the prior notifications to petitioner that this proof was required. Unfortunately, petitioner may not have realized the importance of his submission, despite the fact that Lippa's May 5, 2011 notified him that he "should submit as many of the listed documents as you can, since this is your only opportunity to present your succession rights claim for review a Although the suggested list of documents referred to "Certified New York State Tax returns" and not to certified federal income tax returns, it was not arbitrary and capricious for Lippa to conclude that the 2003 1040 return was not sufficient. Even if that return was certified, it only related to the year 2003. No tax returns were submitted for 2004 and 2005. Thus, the evidence provided by petitioner to Lippa is not the "ample" evidence submitted in the case cited by petitioner, Matter of Murphy v New Y o r k S t a t e Div. Of Hous. AD3d 481 [ l s t Dept 20123 & Community Renewal (91 ["the failure to file the requisite annual 41n attempting to settle this case, petitioner's counsel submitted to opposing counsel a 2 0 0 3 UPS paystub for the period 10/11/03, a 1099-G f r o m the Department of Labor f o r 2 0 0 3 and a SMS, Inc-SMS Industries W-2 f o r 2 0 0 4 , a l l reflecting the apartment address. Although petitioner may have lived with his grandmother for the relevant period, the court is nevertheless constrained to deny the petition. 6 [* 8] . * income affidavit is not fatal to succession rights, provided that t h e party seeking succession rights proffers an excuse f o r such failure . . 5 proof ]). Nor has petitioner explained the failure to be included , and demonstrates residency with o t h e r documentary in the annual income affidavits, to fa11 within t h e ambit of Murphy. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed. This Constitutes the Decision and Judgment of the Court. Dated: January 23, 2013 ENTER : J.S.C. The regulation in Murphy, 91 AD3d 481, s u p r a , is similar to the regulation at issue here, although t h e administrator of t h e Mitchell Lama program is different. 7
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.
