Opinion
June 8, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (David B. Saxe, J.).
In holding that HPD's refusal to approve Donna Levin as a tenant-stockholder of Whitman was arbitrary and capricious, the IAS court directed that, "unless there is some other reason for disapproving Donna Levin", respondent Whitman was required forthwith to permit and facilitate the transfer of the stock and occupancy agreement referable to the subject apartment to her and to permit her to occupy the apartment. Implicit in the court's decision is the finding that regardless of petitioner's right to inherit the apartment from her grandmother, her occupancy of the apartment was contingent upon the satisfaction of the income limits required of all residents of subsidized housing projects. However, in the order and judgment which was subsequently settled, the direction to permit petitioner Donna Levin to occupy the apartment was unconditional.
Accordingly, we modify to remand the matter to HPD for a determination of whether petitioner meets the applicable income requirements.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Kupferman, Carro, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.