Landlord & Tenant

In an article 78 proceeding brought by tenant's son challenging the New York City Housing Authority's denial of his application for “remaining family member” (RFM) status, the Housing Authority appealed from the Appellate Division's reversal of Supreme Court's denial of the petition. The Court of Appeals reversed and reinstated the denial, holding that the Authority's denial was not arbitrary or capricious, and that the son had not properly raised anti-discrimination claims at the administrative hearing.

Tenant's son moved into his mother's one-bedroom apartment in 2009 to care for her through her dementia. The housing authority denied two requests by the son for permission to live with his mother in the apartment. After his mother's death, the son applied for RFM status, which would have permitted him to remain in the apartment. The housing authority denied the request because the son had not been entitled to live in the apartment with his mother because of overcrowding under the housing authority's rules. Because the son lacked permanent permission to live in the apartment while his mother was alive, the authority concluded that the son was not entitled to RFM status. When the son brought this article 78 proceeding to challenge the determination, Supreme Court denied the petition, but the Appellate Division reversed. The housing authority appealed.