Cubilete v. Morales

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cubilete v. Morales

92 A.D.3d 470, 937 N.Y.2d 851

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 9, 2012·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

The hearing officer’s findings of willful misrepresentation, nonverifiable income and breach of rules and regulations are supported by substantial evidence. Moreover, given petitioner’s misconduct over a four-year period, the penalty of termination does not shock one’s sense of fairness, notwithstanding the hardship to petitioner (see Matter of Bland v New York City Hous. Auth., 72 AD3d 528, 528 [2010]; Matter of Smith v New York City Hous. Auth., 40 AD3d 235 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 816 [2007]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and [471] find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.E, Mazzarelli, Renwick, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

The hearing officer’s findings of willful misrepresentation, nonverifiable income and breach of rules and regulations are supported by substantial evidence. Moreover, given petitioner’s misconduct over a four-year period, the penalty of termination does not shock one’s sense of fairness, notwithstanding the hardship to petitioner (see Matter of Bland v New York City Hous. Auth., 72 AD3d 528, 528 [2010]; Matter of Smith v New York City Hous. Auth., 40 AD3d 235 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 816 [2007]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and [471] find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.E, Mazzarelli, Renwick, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cubilete v. Morales, 92 A.D.3d 470, 937 N.Y.2d 851 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

92 A.D.3d 470 (Cubilete v. Morales) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related