IN RE ANASTASIA PAZANA, pet-ap, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATION & DEVELOPMENT, res-res, VILLAGE VIEW HOUSING CORPORATION, res

8812. IN RE ANASTASIA PAZANA, pet-ap, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATION & DEVELOPMENT, res-res, VILLAGE VIEW HOUSING CORPORATION, res — Vernon & Ginsburg, LLP, New York (Yoram Silagy of counsel), for ap — Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Norman Corenthal of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered October 31, 2011, denying the petition seeking to annul respondent New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development's determination which denied petitioner succession rights to the subject apartment, and dismissing 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.

8812. IN RE ANASTASIA PAZANA, pet-ap, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATION & DEVELOPMENT, res-res, VILLAGE VIEW HOUSING CORPORATION, res — Vernon & Ginsburg, LLP, New York (Yoram Silagy of counsel), for ap — Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Norman Corenthal of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered October 31, 2011, denying the petition seeking to annul respondent New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development’s determination which denied petitioner succession rights to the subject apartment, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The agency’s determination had a rational basis in the record (see Matter of Hochhauser v. City of N.Y. Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 48 AD3d 288 [1st Dept 2008]). Even assuming that petitioner established disability, she still failed to meet her burden of proving that she resided in the apartment as her primary residence for a one-year period prior to her grandmother’s death in May 2008 (see 28 RCNY 3-02[p][3]). Petitioner’s affidavit contained the equivocal claim that she “spent much time” at the apartment, where she had lived “for extended periods,” which residency she believed lasted for “well over half the year” in both 2006 and 2007. While petitioner explained the absence of some of the normal documentary indicia of residency, she failed to explain the lack of any other documentary proof of such residence (compare Matter of Murphy v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 91 AD3d 481 [1st Dept 2012], lv granted 19 NY3d 812 [2012]).

IN RE ANASTASIA PAZANA, pet-ap, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATION & DEVELOPMENT, res-res, VILLAGE VIEW HOUSING CORPORATION, res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal