In Matter of Rivera v. New York City. Hous. Auth., Vicente Rivera, a long-time companion of a deceased tenant, sought to "inherit" or "succeed" to a regulated unit as a "remaining family member."
When the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) denied Rivera's request, he filed an special lawsuit -- pursuant to CPLR Article 78 -- to have the agency's determination annulled.
Since the proceeding was based on the sufficiency of the parties' evidence, the case was transferred by the New York County Supreme Court to the Appellate Division, First Department.
The AD1 was of the view Rivera didn't qualify as a "remaining family member" since the tenant never obtained NYCHA's written permission for Rivera to join the household. Also, NYCHA's records showed that the tenant only listed herself and her daughter as the apartment's occupants.
The AD1 was unreceptive to the argument that the reason Rivera's occupancy was never registered was because NYCHA was unwilling to accommodate his disability (and that of the tenant's). Rivera didn't qualify as an "individual with disability" under the American Disabilities Act and lacked standing to raise an ADA claim on behalf of the deceased tenant. And, since the latter had the requisite mental capacity to request permission for Rivera's occupancy, and neglected to do so, that omission also operated to his detriment.
Looks like Rivera only succeeded in pissing off the AD1.
To download a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Matter of Rivera v. New York City. Hous. Auth.,