The state's highest court has refused to hear the case of a Midtown Towers resident who has been fighting eviction from the publicly subsidized housing for three years.

The state Court of Appeals released a decision Tuesday stating that it will not hear the appeal of Denise R. Walcott, because the court does not have jurisdiction.

In rejecting Mrs. Walcott's motion, the court, citing case law, said it "cannot entertain this motion for leave to appeal from the order of the Appellate Division where the appeal to the Appellate Division was from an order entered on an appeal from another court."

The state Appellate Division, Fourth Department, previously had affirmed a Jefferson County Court ruling that upheld her 2005 eviction. The County Court decision, in turn, had upheld a Watertown City Court decision in which a jury found the Watertown Housing Authority had cause to evict her.

The Court of Appeals decision means a sheriff's warrant of eviction now can be acted upon within five days of Mrs. Walcott being served with the decision. Her attorney, Eric Tohtz, Syracuse, said she had not been served with the decision as of Tuesday.

He said there still may be an avenue for keeping Mrs. Walcott in her apartment beyond the five days. He said he plans to file a state Supreme Court action, possibly by as soon as today, against WHA seeking an injunction preventing the eviction.

The basis for the filing would be to resolve questions pertaining to a new lease Mrs. Walcott signed April 7. Mr. Tohtz maintains that with a new lease in effect, Mrs. Walcott is in compliance with its terms and thus is a tenant in good standing.

WHA counters that its board of commissioners prepared a new lease form for all tenants and asked that it be signed when tenants were recertified as being eligible for public housing. Because Mrs. Walcott was still considered a tenant, pending a final decision by the courts, she was asked to sign the lease so she would be subject to the same rules and obligations as other tenants, as well as have the same rights.

WHA believes legal questions related to the new lease already were resolved in the Appellate Division, while Mr. Tohtz disagrees.

"We are asking for a determination that the new lease is valid," Mr. Tohtz said.

Mrs. Walcott was evicted in July 2005 for, among other reasons, hosting a Fourth of July picnic for tenants without WHA permission. The authority also claimed that she upset other tenants and that her apartment failed a fire inspection, a claim she disputes.

A City Court jury ruled in March 2006 that WHA had proper cause to evict her, but Mr. Tohtz contended the jury should have been asked to consider whether the eviction was retaliation for prior complaints Mrs. Walcott had made about WHA management.

He appealed the eviction to County Court on the basis that the retaliatory defense was not allowed to be considered. Judge Kim H. Martusewicz ruled in December 2006 that the City Court jury had correctly found that Ms. Walcott committed at least one serious violation of her lease and at least four other separate violations.

Judge Martusewicz further ruled that Mr. Tohtz had been allowed to raise a retaliatory defense, as the harassment complaint was referenced on several occasions during the trial. In a decision released April 25, the Appellate Division agreed and now the Court of Appeals has decided it cannot hear a challenge of that ruling.

Mrs. Walcott's complaints against WHA helped, in part, to launch an investigation into the authority by the state attorney general's office. That investigation continues.