![]() v Foster,ħ1 NY2d 359, 369-370 Matter of Parkview Assocs. v Perales,ħ7 NY2d 126, 130 see also Matter of Wedinger v Goldberger, 71 NY2d 428, 441, cert denied It is well settled that "estoppel cannot be invoked against a governmental agency to prevent it from discharging its statutory duties" (Matter of New York State Med. Thus, HPD is statutorily required to enforce the Mitchell-Lama Law and regulations regardless of any actions or acquiescence by East Midtown and the other limited-profit housing companies it supervises. HPD is the supervising governmental agency responsible for administering the Mitchell-Lama program in New York City (see Private Housing Finance Law § 2 New York City Charter § 1802). The Mitchell-Lama Law prescribes strict guidelines for tenant eligibility and succession, to which East Midtown must adhere (see 28 RCNY § 3-02). The Appellate Division affirmed, and we now reverse. Supreme Court annulled the determination, holding, among other things, that because of East Midtown's apparent consent to the tenancy, HPD and East Midtown were estopped from evicting petitioner. In response, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul HPD's eviction determination. In September 2005, East Midtown initiated a holdover proceeding against petitioner in Civil Court. Petitioner attempted unsuccessfully to submit an application for successor rights and in July 2005, HPD affirmed the eviction because petitioner could not establish that he qualified for such rights. Following two successful lawsuits by petitioner against East Midtown in 20, East Midtown initiated eviction proceedings against petitioner in December 2004. Although petitioner was no longer authorized to reside in the apartment, East Midtown apparently acquiesced in petitioner's occupancy 2. Respondent East Midtown Plaza Housing Company, Inc., a limited-profit housing company incorporated under the Mitchell-Lama Law, owns and operates the apartment subject to the regulations and supervisory authority of respondent Department of Housing and Preservation Development (HPD). Because he did not reside in the apartment for two consecutive years prior to 2000, the year the last tenants of record (his parents) vacated, petitioner did not qualify for successor rights to the apartment under the Mitchell-Lama Law, but nevertheless remained. By February 2000, the tenants of record had vacated the apartment, leaving petitioner as the sole occupant. Petitioner left the apartment for college at some point in the early 1990's and there is no record of his return to the apartment until 1999, when his name first appeared on the apartment's annual income report. Because petitioner was 14 years old at the time, he was the only member of his family not listed as a tenant of record. ![]() In 1987, petitioner, his parents and brother moved into a two-bedroom Mitchell-Lama apartment in Manhattan 1. The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the petition dismissed. ![]() Weisz, for amicus curiae New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal. Quinn, for appellant East Midtown Plaza Housing Company, Inc. Griffin, for appellant New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development. In the Matter of Mitchell Schorr, Respondent, v New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, et al., Appellants. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |