Matter of Quan v New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. &Dev.
2010 NY Slip Op 01439 [70 AD3d 528]
February 18, 2010
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, March 31, 2010


In the Matter of Oanfa Quan, Appellant,
v
New York CityDepartment of Housing Preservation and Development et al.,Respondents.

[*1]Cornicello & Tendler, LLP, New York (Jay H. Berg of counsel), for appellant.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Susan Paulson of counsel), formunicipal respondent.

Kellner Herlihy Getty & Friedman, LLP, New York (Charles Krausche of counsel), forChinatown Apartments, Inc., respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin G. Diamond, J.), entered July 13, 2009,which denied petitioner's application to annul the determination of respondent New York CityDepartment of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) denying petitioner successionrights to the subject Mitchell-Lama apartment, and dismissed the proceeding, unanimouslyaffirmed, without costs.

The determination that petitioner did not sustain her burden of establishing her entitlement tosuccession rights to her grandmother's apartment had a rational basis (see Matter of Hochhauser v City of N.Y.Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 48 AD3d 288 [2008]; Matter of Pietropolo v New York CityDept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 39 AD3d 406 [2007]). Although petitioner did submit,inter alia, income affidavits and tax returns listing the subject apartment as her address, inrejecting the application, HPD was entitled to consider the inconsistencies contained in otherdocuments filed during the relevant time period, including where petitioner provided an addressother than the subject apartment as her place of residence (see 28 RCNY 3-02 [n] [4];Hochhauser, 48 AD3d at 289).

Contrary to petitioner's contention, she was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing since theregulation under which she claimed succession rights does not provide for a hearing (see28 RCNY 3-02 [p]). The record shows that petitioner utilized the statutory protections andwas [*2]afforded all the due process to which she was entitledunder the circumstances (28 RCNY 3-02 [p] [8] [ii]; Pietropolo, 39 AD3d at 407).Concur—Friedman J.P., Sweeny, Nardelli and Freedman, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.