| Matter of Hochhauser v City of N.Y. Dept. of Hous. Preserv. &Dev. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 01414 [48 AD3d 288] |
| February 14, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of David Hochhauser, Now Known as David Lurie,Appellant, v City of New York Department of Housing Preservation and Development,Respondent, et al., Respondent. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Scott Shorr of counsel), for Cityof New York Department of Housing Preservation and Development, respondent.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman,J.), entered November 1, 2006, which denied petitioner's application to annul the determinationof respondent City of New York Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD)denying petitioner succession rights to the subject Mitchell-Lama apartment, and dismissed theproceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The determination that petitioner did not sustain his burden of establishing his entitlement tosuccession rights to his daughter's apartment had a rational basis (see Matter of Pietropolo v New York CityDept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 39 AD3d 406 [2007]; Matter of McGann-Wayne vLippa, 284 AD2d 279 [2001]). The inclusion of petitioner in income affidavits submitted byhis daughter and son-in-law did not, in and of itself, establish his entitlement to succession rightsas a matter of law (Matter of Pietropolo, 39 AD3d at 406-407). Rather, in rejecting theapplication, HPD was entitled to consider the lack of objective documentary evidence supportingpetitioner's claim, inconsistencies among the documents that were submitted, and the fact thatpetitioner provided an address other than the subject apartment as his place of residence on a taxreturn filed during the relevant time period (see 28 RCNY 3-02 [n] [4]; Matter ofStudley v New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 277 AD2d 101 [2000]).
The HPD did not act illegally or irrationally in declining petitioner's request that his appealbe reopened to consider additional documents, or in concluding that such documents, ifconsidered, would not have warranted a different determination. Nor was petitioner entitled to anevidentiary hearing since the procedures provided by the regulations for determining a familymember's claim to succession rights satisfy due process (28 RCNY 3-02 [p] [8] [ii]; seeMatter of Cadman Plaza N. v New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 290 AD2d344 [2002]).[*2]
We have considered petitioner's remaining contentionsand find them unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Sweeny and Moskowitz, JJ.