In PK v. the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), PK sought to overturn HPD's decision, which denied her application for succession rights to an apartment subject to the Mitchell-Lama program – which is designed to provide affordable housing to moderate- and middle-income families.
PK’s application was based on her claim that she had lived in the apartment with her son, the tenant of record, and that it was her primary residence for at least one year before he vacated the unit. To support her claim, she submitted tax returns and income affidavits. However, HPD found that documentation insufficient. They required additional proof, such as bank statements, a driver's license, motor vehicle registration, voting registration, or utility bills, none of which PK provided.
Further complicating her case, a deed of sale for another property listed a different address for PK, triggering inconsistencies in her application. When she appealed HPD's decision, both the New York County Supreme Court and the Appellate Division, First Department, reviewed the case and upheld HPD's determination, finding that judicial review of administrative decisions is limited to the evidence presented to the agency at the time of its decision. Therefore, PK could not introduce new documents during her appeal to establish her residency rights.
The AD1 also addressed the issue of due process. It concluded that PK did not have a “property interest” in the right to succeed her son's housing unit. And even if she had, the appellate court found that HPD's procedures for determining succession rights were fair and met due process requirements.
Given that that the balance of her arguments were “unavailing,” the denial of her petition was affirmed.
That was far from a successful succession claim.
# # #
DECISION
PK v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD