Case Name: Lindsay Park Housing Corp., Respondent, v. Maurice Grant, Sr., Respondent, and Kim Moorning-Brown, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2001-12-07
Citations: 190 Misc. 2d 777
Docket Number: 
Parties: Lindsay Park Housing Corp., Respondent, v Maurice Grant, Sr., Respondent, and Kim Moorning-Brown, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 190
Pages: 777–778

Head Matter:
[740 NYS2d 552]
Lindsay Park Housing Corp., Respondent, v Maurice Grant, Sr., Respondent, and Kim Moorning-Brown, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,
December 7, 2001
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Kim Moorning-Brown, appellant pro se. Gallet Dreyer & Berkey, LLP, New York City (Beatrice Lesser of counsel), for Lindsay Park Housing Corp., respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The Department of Housing Preservation and Development (DHPD) is vested with exclusive jurisdiction to determine the remaining-family-member claim in city-aided Mitchell-Lama housing (28 RCNY 3-02 [p]; Lindville Hous. Co. v McGann, NYLJ, June 24, 1996, at 29, col 6 [App Term, 1st Dept], affd 242 AD2d 479), and its issuance of a certificate of eviction cannot be collaterally attacked in the subsequent summary proceeding (Yorkville Towers Assoc. v Mourino, NYLJ, June 9, 1997, at 29, col 3 [App Term, 1st Dept]). If appellant felt aggrieved by DHPD's determination, her remedy was to challenge the DHPD determination in a CPLR article 78 proceeding (id.).
Aronin, J.P., Golia and Rios, JJ., concur.