Baldwin v. New York City Housing Authority

65 A.D.2d 546, 408 N.Y.S.2d 948, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13170
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 2, 1978
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 65 A.D.2d 546 (Baldwin v. New York City Housing Authority) 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. New York City Housing Authority, 65 A.D.2d 546, 408 N.Y.S.2d 948, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13170 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York City Housing Authority which, after a hearing, terminated petitioner’s tenancy on the ground of nondesirability, the authority appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 23, 1977, as modified the determination by permitting the petitioner and her daughter to continue as tenants provided that petitioner’s two older sons do not return to reside with her and that her youngest son make only supervised visits. Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. The petitioner has lived in her project apartment for 20 years. She has three sons, aged 16, 18 and 20, and a 9-year-old daughter. Ten of the 11 offenses which culminated in the housing authority’s finding of nondesirability were committed by the petitioner’s three sons, none of whom currently reside with her. The eleventh offense was allegedly committed by the petitioner’s boyfriend. Since neither the petitioner nor her daughter committed any of the offenses, termination of her tenancy was so disproportionate to the offenses as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness, and Special Term did not exceed its authority in modifying the penalty (see Matter of Butterly & Green v Lomenzo, 36 NY2d 250, 256; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 233). Damiani, J. P., Suozzi, Shapiro and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Gist v. Mulligan
65 A.D.3d 1231 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Brown v. Lannert
272 A.D.2d 323 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Dolson v. Middletown Housing Authority
176 Misc. 2d 507 (New York Supreme Court, 1998)
Brown v. Popolizio
166 A.D.2d 44 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Maxton Housing Authority v. McLean
328 S.E.2d 290 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1985)
Hines v. New York City Housing Authority
67 A.D.2d 1000 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
65 A.D.2d 546, 408 N.Y.S.2d 948, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baldwin-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1978.