| Matter of Blake v New York City Hous. Auth. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 08938 [78 AD3d 1175] |
| November 30, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Troy Blake, Respondent, v New York CityHousing Authority, Appellant. |
—[*1]
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York CityHousing Authority dated December 19, 2008, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner'sgrievance challenging the denial of his request to succeed to the tenancy of his late mother'sapartment as a remaining family member, the New York City Housing Authority appeals, bypermission, from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (F. Rivera, J.), dated October 2,2009, which directed a further hearing on a factual issue.
Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, and the order isvacated; and it is further,
Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding isdismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.
Since the petition raises the question of whether the challenged determination is supported bysubstantial evidence, the Supreme Court should have transferred the proceeding to this Court(see CPLR 7804 [g]). Nevertheless, because the record is now before this Court, we willtreat the matter as one initially transferred here and will review the administrative determinationde novo (see Matter of Oglesby v New York City Hous. Auth., 66 AD3d 905 [2009];Matter of Roman v New York City Hous. Auth., 63 AD3d 845, 846 [2009]).
There is substantial evidence in the record to support the determination of the New York CityHousing Authority (hereinafter the NYCHA) that the petitioner did not continuously reside in hismother's apartment for a period of at least one year after having obtained written approval tobecome a permanent member of his mother's household and prior to his mother's death (seeMatter of Roman v New York City Hous. Auth., 63 AD3d at 846; Matter of Hargrove vVan Dyke Hous., 63 AD3d 741 [2009]; Matter of Torres v Hernandez, 55 AD3d 452[2008]; cf. Matter of McLeon v NYCHA Hope Gardens, 48 AD3d 686 [2008]; Matterof New York City Hous. Auth. Hammel Houses v Newman, 39 AD3d 759 [2007]).Accordingly, the petitioner could not succeed to the tenancy of his late mother's apartment as aremaining family member, and the NYCHA correctly denied his grievance (see Matter ofRoman v New York City Hous. Auth., 63 AD3d at 846; Matter of Hargrove v Van DykeHous., 63 AD3d 741 [2009]; Matter of Torres v Hernandez, 55 AD3d 452 [2008]).Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Eng and Lott, JJ., concur.