![]() |
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
NY2D DETERMINATION PETITIONER MATTER YORK AUTHORITY REVIEW LIMITATIONS REASONS ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION REQUEST AD2D STATUTE TENANT YORK CITY PROCEEDING COURT REASONABLE TIME YORK STATE APPELLANTS HOUSING TERMINATE TENANCY JUDICIAL REVIEW MOTION HEARING OFFICER RECEIVED NOTICE PARAGRAPH SEEKING REVIEW |
2 No. 101
In the Matter of Lola Yarbough,
Respondent,
v.
Ruben Franco, et al.,
Appellants.
_________________________________________________________________
2000 NY Int. 114
October 26, 2000
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Henry Schoenfeld, for appellants.
Mimi Rosenberg, for respondent.
New York City Public Housing Resident Alliance, amicus curiæ.
_________________________________________________________________
CIPARICK, J.:
At issue on this appeal is whether the four-month Statute of
Limitations for challenging the denial of a tenant's request to vacate
a New York City Housing Authority default determination accrues upon
entry of the default or upon denial of the tenant's request to vacate
it. We conclude that the limitations period begins to run from receipt
of the denial of the request to vacate the default.
Petitioner Lola Yarbough is a tenant in a low-income housing project
owned by respondent New York City Housing Authority. In May 1996, the
Authority sought to terminate petitioner's tenancy, charging her with
violating its rules by allowing unauthorized family members to reside
with her. After several adjournments, a hearing was scheduled for
November 29, 1996. When petitioner failed to appear on that date, the
Hearing Officer entered a default determination and sustained the
charges. Although the default was entered on December 3, 1996, the
Authority did not serve notice of it until on or about April 1, 1997.
Petitioner received the notice on April 7, 1997 and the next day filed
a request to vacate the default pursuant to paragraph 8 of the
Authority's Termination of Tenancy Procedures,(1) maintaining that
she never received notice of the November 29, 1996 adjournment. Months
later, by decision dated June 24, 1997 and sent to petitioner by mail,
the Authority denied her request as untimely.
SNIPPETS:
|
| | | |