Tenant's Son Can't Get Mitchell-Lama Apartment

April 12, 2013

LVT Number: #24714

Tenant's son claimed succession rights to Mitchell-Lama apartment after tenant moved out in December 2004. HPD ruled against the son because he didn't appear on tenant's income affidavit for the calendar year 2004. HPD found that, since the family member failed to prove that the apartment had been his primary residence for two years immediately before tenant vacated, he didn't qualify under HPD rules for succession rights. The son appealed and lost. HPD's decision was rational and reasonable based on the facts and law.

Tenant's son claimed succession rights to Mitchell-Lama apartment after tenant moved out in December 2004. HPD ruled against the son because he didn't appear on tenant's income affidavit for the calendar year 2004. HPD found that, since the family member failed to prove that the apartment had been his primary residence for two years immediately before tenant vacated, he didn't qualify under HPD rules for succession rights. The son appealed and lost. HPD's decision was rational and reasonable based on the facts and law. The son argued on appeal that tenant actually moved out in 2003, so the 2004 income affidavit didn't matter. But this claim wasn't presented to HPD and couldn't be considered in an appeal to review HPD's decision.

Sosa v. HPD: Index No. 401979/2012, NYLJ No. 1202593426796 (Sup. Ct. NY; 3/6/13; Mills, J)

Topics

More like this