Opinion
June 11, 1998
Petitioner essentially conceded that he did not meet respondent Housing Authority's criteria for remaining family member status and, accordingly, there was substantial evidence to support respondent's determination refusing to accord him such status (see, Matter of Kolarick v. Franco, 240 A.D.2d 204). Nor is there any merit to petitioner's contention that his right to succeed to the subject tenancy is governed by section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 ( 42 U.S.C. § 1437f), instead of the criteria promulgated by the Housing Authority (ibid.). Also without merit is petitioner's claim that respondent Housing Authority should be estopped from insisting upon strict compliance with its tenancy succession regulations by reason of the alleged refusal of a Housing Authority employee on one occasion to furnish petitioner with a form to apply for permission to succeed to the tenancy he now claims as of right (see, ibid.; see also, Matter of Hamptons Hosp. Med. Ctr. v. Moore, 52 N.Y.2d 88, 93-94).
We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Nardelli, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.