Campbell v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Campbell v. New York City Housing Authority

282 A.D.2d 397, 723 N.Y.S.2d 662, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4103

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

DecidedApril 26, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D.2d 397 (Campbell 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

Campbell v. New York City Housing Authority, 282 A.D.2d 397, 723 N.Y.S.2d 662, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4103 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority, dated October 22, 1997, terminating petitioner’s public housing tenancy on the ground of violation of probation, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [William McCooe, J.], entered on or about June 9, 1998) dismissed, without costs.

The testimony of respondent’s investigator provided substantial evidence to support the finding that petitioner knowingly and intentionally violated a stipulation of exclusion constituting a condition of her continued eligibility for public housing by permitting her daughter’s presence in her apartment (see, Matter of Romero v Martinez, 280 AD2d 58). The penalty of termination does not shock our sense of fairness (see, id.; Matter of Featherstone v Franco, 95 NY2d 550). Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Wallach, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority, dated October 22, 1997, terminating petitioner’s public housing tenancy on the ground of violation of probation, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [William McCooe, J.], entered on or about June 9, 1998) dismissed, without costs.

The testimony of respondent’s investigator provided substantial evidence to support the finding that petitioner knowingly and intentionally violated a stipulation of exclusion constituting a condition of her continued eligibility for public housing by permitting her daughter’s presence in her apartment (see, Matter of Romero v Martinez, 280 AD2d 58). The penalty of termination does not shock our sense of fairness (see, id.; Matter of Featherstone v Franco, 95 NY2d 550). Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Wallach, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 397, 723 N.Y.S.2d 662, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/campbell-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack