Douglas v. Lannert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Douglas v. Lannert

272 A.D.2d 327, 714 N.Y.S.2d 679, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4810

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

DecidedMay 1, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 272 A.D.2d 327 (Douglas v. Lannert) 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

Douglas v. Lannert, 272 A.D.2d 327, 714 N.Y.S.2d 679, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4810 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Deputy Commissioner of the Westchester County Department of Planning, dated February 23, 1998, which, after a hearing, terminated the petitioner’s assistance from the Section 8 Housing Assistance Program {see, 42 USC § 1437f [b] [1]).

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

The record contains substantial evidence to support the respondents’ determination discontinuing the petitioner’s Section 8 benefits (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 231; Langton v Rutkoske, 252 AD2d 504). In addition, the notice of termination adequately apprised the petitioner of the violations upon which her termination from the program was based (see, Matter of Chase v Binghamton Hous. Auth., 91 AD2d 1147; Matter of Colon v Blum, 81 AD2d 637). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Deputy Commissioner of the Westchester County Department of Planning, dated February 23, 1998, which, after a hearing, terminated the petitioner’s assistance from the Section 8 Housing Assistance Program {see, 42 USC § 1437f [b] [1]).

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

The record contains substantial evidence to support the respondents’ determination discontinuing the petitioner’s Section 8 benefits (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 231; Langton v Rutkoske, 252 AD2d 504). In addition, the notice of termination adequately apprised the petitioner of the violations upon which her termination from the program was based (see, Matter of Chase v Binghamton Hous. Auth., 91 AD2d 1147; Matter of Colon v Blum, 81 AD2d 637). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 327, 714 N.Y.S.2d 679, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4810, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/douglas-v-lannert-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack