Respondent's finding that petitioner is not a "remaining family member", as that term is defined in respondent's Management Manual, is substantially supported by the administrative record. Petitioner never obtained written approval from the project management to become a permanent member of the then authorized tenant family (see, New York City Hous. Auth. Mgt. Manual, ch VII [E][1][a]), written approval to become a permanent member of the tenant family, having under the circumstances at bar, been a necessary condition of petitioner's recognition as a remaining family member (see, Mgt. Manual, ch VII [E][1][d]; Matter of Kolarick v. Franco, 240 A.D.2d 204). Indeed, permission was requested only for petitioner to occupy the subject apartment temporarily, and even so limited a request for permission to occupy the subject apartment was denied, on the ground, inter alia, of overcrowding, in a determination that is not subject to judicial review due to the Statute of Limitations.
We have considered petitioner's other arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.