Charles v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Charles v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation

2016 NY Slip Op 7265, 144 A.D.3d 444, 39 N.Y.S.3d 786

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

DecidedNovember 3, 2016

Docket2129 101212/14

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 7265 (Charles v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation) 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

Charles v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation, 2016 NY Slip Op 7265, 144 A.D.3d 444, 39 N.Y.S.3d 786 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), dated June 26, 2014, issuing a certificate of eviction upon a finding that petitioner had violated HPD’s rules and the occupancy agreement for the Mitchell-Lama apartment at issue, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Paul Wooten, J.], entered May 11, 2015), dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence supports HPD’s determination that the apartment was not petitioner’s primary residence and had been sublet to third parties without authorization in violation of HPD’s rules (see 28 RCNY 3-02 [n] [4]; see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 181 [1978]). Petitioner failed to submit sufficient and reliable evidence to rebut the testimony demonstrating that she had violated the rules (see Matter of O’Quinn v New York City Dept. of Hous. Presero. & Dev., 284 AD2d 211 [1st Dept 2001]). There is no basis to disturb the Hearing Officer’s credibility determinations (Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443 [1987]).

Under the circumstances, the issuance of a certificate of eviction does not shock the conscience (see e.g. Matter of Alarape v New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 55 AD3d 316 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 801 [2009]; Matter of Graceffo v City of New York, 71 AD3d 603 [1st Dept 2010]; see generally Matter of Scott v Peekskill Hous. Auth., 28 NY2d 610 [1971]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Fein-man, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), dated June 26, 2014, issuing a certificate of eviction upon a finding that petitioner had violated HPD’s rules and the occupancy agreement for the Mitchell-Lama apartment at issue, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Paul Wooten, J.], entered May 11, 2015), dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence supports HPD’s determination that the apartment was not petitioner’s primary residence and had been sublet to third parties without authorization in violation of HPD’s rules (see 28 RCNY 3-02 [n] [4]; see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 181 [1978]). Petitioner failed to submit sufficient and reliable evidence to rebut the testimony demonstrating that she had violated the rules (see Matter of O’Quinn v New York City Dept. of Hous. Presero. & Dev., 284 AD2d 211 [1st Dept 2001]). There is no basis to disturb the Hearing Officer’s credibility determinations (Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443 [1987]).

Under the circumstances, the issuance of a certificate of eviction does not shock the conscience (see e.g. Matter of Alarape v New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 55 AD3d 316 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 801 [2009]; Matter of Graceffo v City of New York, 71 AD3d 603 [1st Dept 2010]; see generally Matter of Scott v Peekskill Hous. Auth., 28 NY2d 610 [1971]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Fein-man, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2016 NY Slip Op 7265, 144 A.D.3d 444, 39 N.Y.S.3d 786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-v-new-york-city-department-of-housing-preservation-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack