Supreme Court denied DHCR's motion, annulled the agency's denial of Murphy's appeal, and granted his succession petition. Murphy then filed the instant article 78 petition in Supreme Court challenging the agency's determination, and DHCR moved to dismiss the proceeding. The agency considered this failure an absolute bar to Murphy's succession eligibility under its regulations. DHCR based its denial on the fact that Murphy's mother, the tenant-of-record, had failed to file an annual income affidavit listing Murphy as a co-occupant for one of the two years prior to her vacatur in 2000. Southbridge Towers rejected the application and DHCR subsequently denied Murphy's appeal. In January 2000, Murphy's parents vacated the apartment, and in 2004, Murphy filed a succession application to succeed to the tenancy. Murphy moved into the apartment with his parents when he was one month old, in 1981, and extensive evidence demonstrates that he has continued to live in the apartment ever since. Murphy is a lifelong resident of an apartment in Southbridge Towers, a housing complex in lower Manhattan operated under the Limited-Profit Housing Companies Act and the Private Housing Finance Law (collectively, Mitchell-Lama). Because the evidence of Murphy's primary residency was overwhelming, and because there was no relationship between the tenant-of-record's failure to file the income affidavit and the succession applicant's income or occupancy, the agency's determination was arbitrary and capricious. This case arises from a determination of the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) denying petitioner Paul Murphy (Murphy) succession rights to a Mitchell-Lama apartment. New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, Appellant, SouthBridge Towers, Inc., Respondent.ĭavid S. In the Matter of Paul Murphy, Respondent, This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that because the evidence of Petitioner's primary residency was overwhelming, and because the was no relationship between the mother's failure to file the income affidavit and Petitioner's income or occupancy, DHCR's determination was arbitrary and capricious. Supreme Court annulled DHCR's denial of Petitioner's appeal and granted his succession petition. The Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) denied Petitioner's appeal, basing its denial on the fact that Petitioner's mother had failed to file an annual income affidavit listing Petitioner as a co-occupant for one of the two years prior to her vacatur. The housing complex rejected the application. ![]() ![]() After Petitioner's parents vacated the apartment, Petitioner filed a successive application to succeed to the tenancy. Petitioner was a lifelong resident of a housing complex operated under the Limited-Profit Housing Companies Act and the Private Housing Finance Law.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |