Adamson v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Adamson v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development

139 A.D.3d 527, 30 N.Y.S.3d 546

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 19, 2016

Docket1171 101339/14

StatusPublished

This text of 139 A.D.3d 527 (Adamson v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adamson v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development, 139 A.D.3d 527, 30 N.Y.S.3d 546 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent, dated October 24, 2014, which terminated petitioner’s Section 8 subsidy on the ground that he misrepresented his family composition, unanimously modified, on the law, to vacate the penalty of termination, and to remand the matter to respondent for imposition of a lesser penalty, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Alice Schlesinger, J.], entered Apr. 17, 2015), otherwise disposed of by confirming the remainder of the determination, without costs.

The finding that petitioner misrepresented the composition of his household is supported by substantial evidence, which included petitioner’s testimony (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180-181 [1978]). However, the penalty of termination of petitioner’s Section 8 subsidy is disproportionate to the offense under the circumstances. Although petitioner acknowledged that his granddaughter did not reside with him at least 51% of the time, his granddaughter did stay with him weekends and when her terminally ill mother was in the hospital. Petitioner is 71 years old, has decreased mobility, has household income that is insufficient to cover his unsubsidized rent, had no prior incidents, and there was no evidence of an intent to defraud respondent (see e.g. Matter of Bauman v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 101 AD3d 633 [1st Dept 2012]; Matter of Chierchia v New York City Hous. Auth., 92 AD3d 587 [1st Dept 2012]; Matter of Williams v Donovan, 60 AD3d 594 [1st Dept 2009]; Matter of Gray v Donovan, 58 AD3d 488 [1st Dept 2009]).

On remand, respondent should calculate the amount of excess subsidy received by petitioner, if any (see Williams at 595).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Determination of respondent, dated October 24, 2014, which terminated petitioner’s Section 8 subsidy on the ground that he misrepresented his family composition, unanimously modified, on the law, to vacate the penalty of termination, and to remand the matter to respondent for imposition of a lesser penalty, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Alice Schlesinger, J.], entered Apr. 17, 2015), otherwise disposed of by confirming the remainder of the determination, without costs.

The finding that petitioner misrepresented the composition of his household is supported by substantial evidence, which included petitioner’s testimony (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180-181 [1978]). However, the penalty of termination of petitioner’s Section 8 subsidy is disproportionate to the offense under the circumstances. Although petitioner acknowledged that his granddaughter did not reside with him at least 51% of the time, his granddaughter did stay with him weekends and when her terminally ill mother was in the hospital. Petitioner is 71 years old, has decreased mobility, has household income that is insufficient to cover his unsubsidized rent, had no prior incidents, and there was no evidence of an intent to defraud respondent (see e.g. Matter of Bauman v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 101 AD3d 633 [1st Dept 2012]; Matter of Chierchia v New York City Hous. Auth., 92 AD3d 587 [1st Dept 2012]; Matter of Williams v Donovan, 60 AD3d 594 [1st Dept 2009]; Matter of Gray v Donovan, 58 AD3d 488 [1st Dept 2009]).

On remand, respondent should calculate the amount of excess subsidy received by petitioner, if any (see Williams at 595).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.3d 527, 30 N.Y.S.3d 546, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adamson-v-new-york-city-department-of-housing-preservation-development-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack