Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Matter of Adams v. New York City Hous. Auth.
Citation: 2022 NY Slip Op 05943Docket: Index No. 100681/20 Appeal No. 16515 Case No. 2022-01491
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; October 25, 2022; New York; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the New York City Housing Authority’s (NYCHA) decision to deny Starkisha Adams' application to succeed to her deceased relative's apartment as a remaining family member (RFM). The court confirmed that NYCHA's determination, made after a hearing on December 2, 2019, was supported by substantial evidence under CPLR 7803(4). Key points include: 1. **Non-compliance with Written Consent**: Adams and the tenant of record did not comply with NYCHA's requirement for written consent to be eligible for succession rights. 2. **Lack of Reasonable Excuse**: Adams failed to provide a reasonable excuse for not adhering to the written consent rule. 3. **Evidence of Knowledge and Consent**: Although Adams claimed that NYCHA was aware of her occupancy through informal communications and her involvement with the tenant association, the court found no substantiating evidence of any NYCHA representative consenting to her occupancy prior to her nomination as an officer of the tenant association less than a year before the tenant's death in November 2016. 4. **Tenant Affidavits**: The tenant of record did not list Adams on annual income affidavits, and Adams had submitted a request for permission to move into the apartment from a different address in May 2016. 5. **Misleading Information**: Adams contended that a housing assistant had advised her against submitting a request due to her criminal history, but the court held that misleading information from agency representatives does not estop the agency from enforcing its policies. The court dismissed the petition under CPLR article 78 without costs, reinforcing the necessity of compliance with NYCHA's rules for succession.