Per Curiam
Final judgment entered February 15, 2001 (Howard L. Malatzky, J.) affirmed, without costs.
Appellants decedent was the tenant of record of a project-based Section 8 housing unit. She commenced occupancy in the apartment as a home health care worker and was consistently identified on leases and annual income re-certifications as a "live-in attendant". While appellant claims to have enjoyed a personal relationship with the decedent, we agree that there is no basis for appellant to succeed to possession as a nontraditional family member under State law. Project-based subsidies remain with the unit when the tenant vacates, and vacancies are filled from a waiting list maintained by the regulatory agency ( 24 C.F.R. § 983.203[c]). No approval was requested or obtained for appellant to reside in the premises as an additional family member (see, 24 C.F.R. § 982.551[h][2]; 983.1[b][1]), and HUD's policies (see, 24 C.F.R. § 982.551 [h][4]) do not recognize care attendants as family members for continued occupancy purposes. Under such circumstances, appellant is neither entitled to continuation of the Section 8 subsidy (see, Matter of Evans v. Franco, 93 N.Y.2d 823) nor to the necessarily entwined benefit of successor occupancy.