Hargrove v. Van Dyke Housing

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York City Housing Authority dated February 8, 2006, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s grievance challenging the denial of her request to succeed to the public housing tenancy of her deceased grandmother as a remaining family member. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements. 742 There is substantial evidence in the record to support the determination of the New York City Housing Authority that the petitioner is not a “remaining family member” (New York City Housing Authority Management Manual, ch VII, § E) and, accordingly, is not entitled to occupancy of the subject public housing apartment (see Matter of Lancaster v Martinez, 298 AD2d 585 [2002]). At the grievance hearing, the petitioner failed to establish that she obtained the project management’s written approval to become a permanent member of the tenant’s household or that she occupied the apartment continuously for a period of one year after obtaining permission, which are necessary conditions to the recognition of the petitioner as a remaining family member (see Matter of McLeon v NYCHA Hope Gardens, 48 AD3d 686 [2008]; Matter of New York City Hous. Auth. Hammel Houses v Newman, 39 AD3d 759 [2007]; Matter of Lancaster v Martinez, 298 AD2d 585 [2002]). Dillon, J.P., Angiolillo, Dickerson and Eng, JJ., concur.