Feliciano v. Christian

69 A.D.2d 796, 415 N.Y.S.2d 418, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11423
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 17, 1979
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 69 A.D.2d 796 (Feliciano v. Christian) 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
Feliciano v. Christian, 69 A.D.2d 796, 415 N.Y.S.2d 418, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11423 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered October 12, 1977, dismissing an article 78 proceeding brought by petitioner Carmen Feliciano to review a determination of the New York City Housing Authority conditioning petitioner’s continued occupancy in her apartment in public housing upon the permanent exclusion of a son Joe Feliciano from said apartment, unanimously modified, on the law, the penalty annulled, the matter remanded for reconsideration of the penalty in light of the present facts, and the judgment is otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements. On September 17, 1976, almost a year after the acts charged, a hearing officer of the New York City Housing Authority found substantial evidence to support charges that petitioner’s son, then 13 years of age, had [797]*797engaged in sexual acts with a six-year-old child and participated in an attempted burglary of a housing project office. There was testimony before the hearing officer that the child of the petitioner no longer demonstrated hostility and aggressiveness and inability to perform satisfactorily in school, but had matured, is co-operative and no longer constitutes a danger to other children in the project and is employed. Although there are cases where eviction of antisocial family members is an appropriate remedy consistent with the authority’s legitimate interest in protecting its law-abiding tenants, we are agreed, in view of the passage of time since the housing authority determination herein, and the appellant’s claim that her son has been "rehabilitated”, that the respondent should review the penalty imposed herein in light of the present facts (see Cheek v Christian, 67 AD2d 887). Concur—Birns, J. P., Sandler, Lupiano, Silverman and Bloom, JJ.

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

Related

Featherstone v. Franco
269 A.D.2d 109 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Vargas v. Franco
238 A.D.2d 274 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
James v. New York City Housing Authority
186 A.D.2d 498 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
69 A.D.2d 796, 415 N.Y.S.2d 418, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feliciano-v-christian-nyappdiv-1979.