Fazal v. Wambua

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fazal v. Wambua

105 A.D.3d 638, 963 N.Y.S.2d 582

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 25, 2013·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Determination of respondent, dated November 22, 2011, terminating petitioner’s participation in the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program, 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 [Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.], entered July 20, 2012) dismissed, without costs.

The determination was supported by substantial evidence (.300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180 [1978]). Indeed, joint federal income tax returns filed by petitioner and her husband demonstrate that she intentionally misrepresented the household’s income during annual Section 8 recertifications in 2008, 2009, and 2010, resulting in a significant subsidy overpayment.

Given the Court of Appeals’ decision in Matter of Perez v Rhea (20 NY3d 399 [2013]), the penalty imposed does not shock our sense of fairness.

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

Concur—Tom, J.P, Acosta, Feinman and Clark, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent, dated November 22, 2011, terminating petitioner’s participation in the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program, 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 [Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.], entered July 20, 2012) dismissed, without costs.

The determination was supported by substantial evidence (.300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180 [1978]). Indeed, joint federal income tax returns filed by petitioner and her husband demonstrate that she intentionally misrepresented the household’s income during annual Section 8 recertifications in 2008, 2009, and 2010, resulting in a significant subsidy overpayment.

Given the Court of Appeals’ decision in Matter of Perez v Rhea (20 NY3d 399 [2013]), the penalty imposed does not shock our sense of fairness.

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

Concur—Tom, J.P, Acosta, Feinman and Clark, JJ.

Fazal v. Wambua, 105 A.D.3d 638, 963 N.Y.S.2d 582 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

105 A.D.3d 638 (Fazal v. Wambua) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related