grievance procedure, which provided: [a] decision by the Hearing Officer ... which denies the relief requested by the complainant shall not constitute a waiver of, nor affect in any way, the rights of the complainant to a trial de novo or judicial review in any judicial proceedings, which may thereafter be brought in the matter. 13 Misc.3d 141(A), 831 N.Y.S.2d 360 (Table), 2006 WL 3437868, at *1-*2 (N.Y.App.Term Nov. 15, 2006). The Yonkers court held that the omission of the words “any” and “may have” — which are in § 966.57(c) but not the grievance procedure — “affirmatively suggests that the tenant has a right to a trial de novo”. Id.; see also Town of Oyster Bay Hous. Auth. v. Schwartz, 25 Misc.3d 1223(A), 906 N.Y.S.2d 776 (Table), 2009 WL 3764735 (N.Y.Dist.Ct. Nov. 10, 2009) (<HOLDING>); cf. New York City Hous. Auth. v. Margiato, 4
holding that the couit did not need to rule on whether  96657c required the housing court to provide tor a trial de novo following an administrative hearing because as in yonkers the housing authoritys grievance procedures also omitted the words any and majx have as found in the federal regulations and therefore a right to a trial de novo was granted by the housing authority in its grievance procedures recognizing that the application of statutory criteria to facts as found by the district court is subject to de novo review holding that  96657c is not to create any rights to a trial de novo of the issue of whether the tenancy was properly terminated but merely to preserve the tenants right to judicial review of the administrative determination in a cplr article 78 proceeding holding that the proper review for the trial courts application of the law is de novo holding following whitney that defendant was deemed to have waived right to a de novo jury trial where failure to appear at de novo trial was due to his own neglect in not informing the clerks office of his change of address