From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chun Po so v. Rhea

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
May 14, 2013
106 A.D.3d 487 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-05-14

In re CHUN PO SO, Petitioner, v. John B. RHEA, etc., et al., Respondents.

Andrew L.T. Green, New York, for petitioner. Kelly D. MacNeal, New York (Elena Madalina Andrei of counsel), for respondents.



Andrew L.T. Green, New York, for petitioner. Kelly D. MacNeal, New York (Elena Madalina Andrei of counsel), for respondents.
FRIEDMAN, J.P., RICHTER, FEINMAN, GISCHE, CLARK, JJ.

Determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), dated April 11, 2012, which, after a hearing, approved the decision to deny petitioner's grievance, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Donna M. Mills, J.], entered October 23, 2012), dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence supports NYCHA's determination that adding petitioner's daughter as a permanent tenant in the household would create an overcrowding situation in violation of NYCHA's occupancy standards and would unfairly provide a windfall to her daughter to the detriment of other potential tenants ( see Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 N.Y.2d 222, 231, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321 [1974] ). NYCHA's occupancy standards do not permit an additional person to permanently join a household in a one-bedroom apartment unless that person is a spouse, domestic partner, or child under the age of six ( see Matter of Bashmet v. Hernandez, 87 A.D.3d 866, 866, 929 N.Y.S.2d 190 [1st Dept. 2011] ). Although petitioner has a disability requiring essentially 24–hour care, her disability was reasonably accommodated by the offer to permit her adult daughter to reside in the apartment on a temporary basis, which she can continue to do as long as petitioner requires her assistance ( seeExecutive Law § 296; Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 8–107[5][a][l], [15] ).

We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

Chun Po so v. Rhea

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
May 14, 2013
106 A.D.3d 487 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

Chun Po so v. Rhea

Case Details

Full title:In re CHUN PO SO, Petitioner, v. John B. RHEA, etc., et al., Respondents.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: May 14, 2013

Citations

106 A.D.3d 487 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
965 N.Y.S.2d 98
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 3422

Citing Cases

Aponte v. Olatoye

Neither petitioner nor his mother was afforded a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate what would constitute…

Blas v. Olatoye

e the denial of the request for reasonable accommodation made by her late mother, the tenant of record…