Opinion
June 10, 1997
Respondent's finding that petitioner is not a remaining family member is justified by the absence of any proof that petitioner, who was the original tenant's son, lived with his mother continuously since the time she first became a tenant or had obtained the written approval of the project manager before moving in with his mother after she became a tenant, as required by respondent's Management Manual (ch VII [E] [1] [a]). Nor is respondent estopped from denying petitioner tenancy status by having accepted rent from him after his mother died ( see, Matter of Hamptons Hosp. Med. Ctr. v. Moore, 52 N.Y.2d 88, 93-94; New York City Hous. Auth. v. Sykes, 117 Misc.2d 293, 295-296). Therefore, petitioner could not have been prejudiced by the Hearing Officer's refusal to accept additional evidence on the manner in which petitioner paid the rent, since such would not have altered the fact that petitioner never obtained the project manager's written approval in taking up occupancy of the apartment, and the resultant conclusion that he is not a remaining family member.
Concur — Wallach, J.P., Nardelli, Rubin, Tom and Andrias, JJ.