IN RE MALIK TURNER, pet-ap, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATION & DEVELOPMENT res-res

3752. IN RE MALIK TURNER, pet-ap, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATION & DEVELOPMENT res-res — Alter & Barbaro, Brooklyn (Do K. Lee of counsel), for ap — Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Daniel Matza-Brown of counsel), for municipal res — Rose & Rose, New York (Irina Svetlichnaya of counsel), for Village East Towers Corp., res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol E. Huff, J.), entered June 23, 2015, which denied the petition seeking to annul the determination of respondent, The New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), dated August 11, 2014, which found that petitioner was not entitled to succeed to the tenancy of his deceased grandmother's Mitchell-Lama apartment, and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

3752. IN RE MALIK TURNER, pet-ap, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATION & DEVELOPMENT res-res — Alter & Barbaro, Brooklyn (Do K. Lee of counsel), for ap — Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Daniel Matza-Brown of counsel), for municipal res — Rose & Rose, New York (Irina Svetlichnaya of counsel), for Village East Towers Corp., res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol E. Huff, J.), entered June 23, 2015, which denied the petition seeking to annul the determination of respondent, The New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), dated August 11, 2014, which found that petitioner was not entitled to succeed to the tenancy of his deceased grandmother’s Mitchell-Lama apartment, and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

“The determination that petitioner did not sustain his burden of establishing his entitlement to succession rights to his [grandmother's] apartment was not affected by an error of law, and was not irrational, unreasonable, or arbitrary and capricious” (Matter of Pietropolo v. New York City Dept. Of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 39 AD3d 406, 406 [1st Dept 2007]; CPLR 7803[3]).

IN RE MALIK TURNER, pet-ap, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATION & DEVELOPMENT res-res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal