Opinion
12150 Index No. 452826/15 Case No. 2019-5741
10-22-2020
In re Jaquel PULLINS, Petitioner–Respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, et al., Respondents–Appellants.
Lisa Bova–Hiatt, New York City Housing Authority Law Department, New York (Andrew M. Lupin of counsel), for appellants. Janet E. Sabel, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Emma L. Rosenberg of counsel), for respondent.
Lisa Bova–Hiatt, New York City Housing Authority Law Department, New York (Andrew M. Lupin of counsel), for appellants.
Janet E. Sabel, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Emma L. Rosenberg of counsel), for respondent.
Friedman, J.P., Kern, Scarpulla, Shulman, JJ.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered July 5, 2019, granting the petition to annul a determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority (N.Y.CHA), dated August 7, 2015, which denied petitioner's grievance seeking succession rights to the tenancy of her late mother as a remaining family member (RFM), and remanding for a new hearing before a different hearing officer, unanimously vacated, the petition treated as one transferred to this Court for de novo review, and, upon such review, the determination, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, dismissed, without costs.
The petition "raised an issue of substantial evidence" and "should have been transferred to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804(g)." As such, "we will ‘treat the substantial evidence issues de novo and decide all issues as if the proceeding had been properly transferred’ " ( Matter of Roberts v. Rhea, 114 A.D.3d 504, 504, 979 N.Y.S.2d 816 [1st Dept. 2014], quoting Matter of Jimenez v. Popolizio, 180 A.D.2d 590, 591, 580 N.Y.S.2d 302 [1st Dept. 1991] ).
Substantial evidence supports the determination that petitioner is not entitled to succession rights as a RFM following the death of her mother, the tenant of record (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 180, 408 N.Y.S.2d 54, 379 N.E.2d 1183 [1978] ). NYCHA granted a request by petitioner's mother to remove petitioner from the family household composition, which petitioner's mother supported by, among other things, representing in an affidavit submitted to NYCHA that petitioner had moved out of the apartment and that her whereabouts were unknown (see Matter of Mitchner v. New York City Hous. Auth., Mitchell Houses, 124 A.D.3d 535, 2 N.Y.S.3d 104 [1st Dept. 2015] ). A NYCHA employee testified at the hearing that no subsequent request was made for petitioner to rejoin the household (see Matter of McBride v. New York City Hous. Auth., 140 A.D.3d 415, 31 N.Y.S.3d 505 [1st Dept. 2016] ), and petitioner failed to present circumstances relieving her of the requirement of written consent to rejoin the tenancy (see Matter of McFarlane v. New York City Hous. Auth., 9 A.D.3d 289, 291, 780 N.Y.S.2d 135 [1st Dept. 2004] ). There is no basis for disturbing the Hearing Officer's credibility determinations or weighing of any conflicting evidence (see Matter of Bolt v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 30 N.Y.3d 1065, 1076, 69 N.Y.S.3d 255, 91 N.E.3d 1234 [2018] ).