No. 24-412

George Kralik v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development, et al.

Lower Court: New York
Docketed: 2024-10-11
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: administrative-law administrative-procedure agency-action due-process statutory-interpretation tenant-rights
Key Terms:
Securities Privacy
Latest Conference: 2024-11-15
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether an administrative agency's prolonged inaction and failure to provide a hearing on a tenant's succession application violates due process rights and statutory authority

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Should an administrative agency’s refusal to act on a tenant’s succession application for many years and its failure to give the tenant a hearing on his succession claim be reversed because it violates the tenant’s right to a trial or jury trial under this court’s ruling in SEC v. Tarkesy, 144 S.Ct. 2117, 219 L.Ed.2d 650 (2023)? 2. Should the courts below have exercised their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency acted within its statutory authority — as this Court required in its ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 144 S.Ct. 224, 219 L. Ed 2d 832 (2024)?

Docket Entries

2024-11-18
Petition DENIED.
2024-10-30
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/15/2024.
2024-10-16
Waiver of right of respondents New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development to respond filed.
2024-10-15
Waiver of right of respondent Tri-Faith Housing Company, Inc. to respond filed.
2024-09-18
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 12, 2024)

Attorneys

George Kralik
Yoram SilagyVernon & Ginsburg, LLP, Petitioner
Yoram SilagyVernon & Ginsburg, LLP, Petitioner
New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development
Hannah J. SarokinNew York City Law Department, Respondent
Hannah J. SarokinNew York City Law Department, Respondent
Tri-Faith Housing Company, Inc.
Douglas A. KellnerKellner Herlihy Getty & Friedman LLP, Respondent
Douglas A. KellnerKellner Herlihy Getty & Friedman LLP, Respondent