In the Matter of Eric Camacho v New York City Housing Authority
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Public housing succession rights and administrative review of a New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) denial of remaining family member (RFM) status.
The lower court granted Eric Camacho's CPLR article 78 [special proceeding used to challenge administrative action] petition, vacated NYCHA's denial of his remaining family member (RFM) grievance, and remanded the matter to NYCHA.
The Appellate Division overturned the Supreme Court order and judgment that had vacated NYCHA's November 22, 2023 determination and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
NYCHA's denial had a rational basis because Camacho never satisfied the required one-year continuous authorized occupancy period before the tenant of record died. Even if written permission had been granted in March 2019, the tenant died in February 2020, leaving less than 12 months of authorized occupancy. The later Admissions and Continued Occupancy Policy (ACOP) would not have changed that result, and hardship, rent payments, or management acquiescence could not create succession rights or estop NYCHA from enforcing eligibility rules.
Background
In March 2019, the tenant of record asked NYCHA for written permission to add her nephew, Eric Camacho, as a permanent household member. NYCHA denied the request because, under the policy then in effect, a nephew was not within the categories of relatives eligible for written permanent permission. The tenant died in February 2020. In November 2023, NYCHA denied Camacho's grievance seeking remaining family member (RFM) status so he could succeed to the apartment. Effective January 1, 2024, NYCHA adopted the Admissions and Continued Occupancy Policy (ACOP), which removed the categorical restriction on which relatives could receive written permanent permission, but it still required that an applicant must have lived in the apartment for at least 12 months from the date written permanent permission was granted and for at least 12 months immediately before the resident's death, while also remaining continuously listed on all affidavits of income.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, New York County, in a proceeding under CPLR article 78 [special proceeding used to challenge administrative action], granted the petition to vacate NYCHA's November 22, 2023 determination denying Camacho's remaining family member (RFM) grievance, to the extent of remanding the matter to NYCHA.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division unanimously reversed, denied the petition, and dismissed the CPLR article 78 proceeding. It held that NYCHA's determination had a rational basis because Camacho could not meet the one-year continuous authorized occupancy requirement before his aunt's death. The court also held that remand was unnecessary because even hypothetical retroactive application of the Admissions and Continued Occupancy Policy (ACOP) would not have changed the outcome.
Legal Significance
This decision reinforces that NYCHA succession rights are strictly governed by authorized occupancy requirements, especially the 12-month continuous residency rule tied to written permanent permission. It also confirms that equitable arguments such as hardship, payment of rent, or management's acquiescence do not create succession rights and cannot estop NYCHA from carrying out its statutory duties.
A family member cannot obtain NYCHA remaining family member (RFM) succession rights without satisfying the required period of authorized continuous occupancy, and later policy changes will not help if the applicant still falls short of that core timing requirement.