New York Court of Appeals, 2001

Walker v. Franco

New York Court of Appeals · Decided July 10, 2001

96 N.Y.2d 891; 756 N.E.2d 74; 730 N.Y.S.2d 785; 2001 N.Y. LEXIS 1987

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

Satterwhite v. Hernandez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Matter of Henderson v. Been (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Douglas v. New York City Housing Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Grant v. New York City Housing Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Grant v. New York City Housing Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Diaz v. Morales (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Bond v. Houses (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Brown v. New York City Housing Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Green v. New York City Police Department (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner claims her eviction should be annulled because it was based on acts committed by her son, and her testimony that he moved out of her apartment six months before the hearing was not rebutted by respondent. Substantial evidence in the record, however, supports respondent’s determination to terminate petitioner’s tenancy on the ground of non-desirability (see, Matter of Woody v Franco, 260 AD2d 186, lv denied 94 NY2d 754). The record reveals the tenancy was terminated as a result of petitioner’s own conduct, not that of her son. Similarly, the cases cited by petitioner are distinguishable in that they involved criminal activity by an “offender” other than the tenant. Petitioner’s contention that she was denied due process is unpreserved for review.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley, Rosenblatt and Graffeo concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), judgment affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum. .

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.