Baldwin v. Hernandez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Baldwin v. Hernandez

68 A.D.3d 663, 891 N.Y.2d 75

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

DecidedDecember 29, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 68 A.D.3d 663 (Baldwin v. Hernandez) 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

Baldwin v. Hernandez, 68 A.D.3d 663, 891 N.Y.2d 75 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

The conditioning of petitioner’s continued tenancy on exclusion of her son for nondesirability is supported by substantial evidence, and was not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Canales v Hernandez, 13 AD3d 263 [2004]). Where this petitioner’s son had pleaded guilty to the assault of a female, threatened two Housing Authority employees, and left harassing messages on the home telephone of his former supervisor, the penalty of continued tenancy conditioned on his exclusion was appropriate and was not shocking to the conscience (see Matter of Featherstone v Franco, 95 NY2d 550 [2000]).

The hearing officer’s grant of additional time for the Housing Authority to submit a written closing statement caused no prejudice to petitioner. Furthermore, the issuance of a decision within one week after receipt of the parties’ submissions was not contrary to the Housing Authority’s termination of tenancy procedures, which require a reasonably timely decision. [664]*664Petitioner was not deprived of due process. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Catterson, Moskowitz, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

The conditioning of petitioner’s continued tenancy on exclusion of her son for nondesirability is supported by substantial evidence, and was not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Canales v Hernandez, 13 AD3d 263 [2004]). Where this petitioner’s son had pleaded guilty to the assault of a female, threatened two Housing Authority employees, and left harassing messages on the home telephone of his former supervisor, the penalty of continued tenancy conditioned on his exclusion was appropriate and was not shocking to the conscience (see Matter of Featherstone v Franco, 95 NY2d 550 [2000]).

The hearing officer’s grant of additional time for the Housing Authority to submit a written closing statement caused no prejudice to petitioner. Furthermore, the issuance of a decision within one week after receipt of the parties’ submissions was not contrary to the Housing Authority’s termination of tenancy procedures, which require a reasonably timely decision. [664]*664Petitioner was not deprived of due process. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Catterson, Moskowitz, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 A.D.3d 663, 891 N.Y.2d 75, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baldwin-v-hernandez-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack