Case ID: misc2d_190/html/0813-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[738 NYS2d 813]
    Davidson 1992 Associates, Respondent, v Elizabeth Corbett, Appellant.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    February 26, 2002
    APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
    
      Bronx Legal Services (Richard S. Lane of counsel), for appellant. Amsterdam & Lewinter, LLP, New York City (Lee Wacksman of counsel), for respondent.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Appellant’s decedent was the tenant of record of a project-based section 8 housing unit. She commenced occupancy in the apartment as a home health care worker and was consistently identified on leases and annual income recertifications as a “live-in attendant.” While appellant claims to have enjoyed a personal relationship with the decedent, we agree that there is no basis for appellant to succeed to possession as a nontraditional family member under state law. Project-based subsidies remain with the unit when the tenant vacates, and vacancies are filled from a waiting list maintained by the regulatory agency (24 CFR 983.203 [c]). No approval was requested or obtained for appellant to reside in the premises as an additional family member (see, 24 CFR 982.551 [h] [2]; 983.1 [b] [1]), and HUD’s policies (see, 24 CFR 982.551 [h] [4]) do not recognize care attendants as family members for continued occupancy purposes. Under such circumstances, appellant is neither entitled to continuation of the section 8 subsidy (see, Matter of Evans v Franco, 93 NY2d 823) nor to the necessarily entwined benefit of successor occupancy.

McCooe, J.P., Gangel-Jacob and Suarez, JJ., concur.