Gibbs v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gibbs v. New York City Housing Authority

82 A.D.3d 412, 918 N.Y.2d 42

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

DecidedMarch 1, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 82 A.D.3d 412 (Gibbs v. New York City Housing Authority) 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

Gibbs v. New York City Housing Authority, 82 A.D.3d 412, 918 N.Y.2d 42 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Respondent’s finding that petitioner failed to comply with the [413]*413terms of a stipulation in which she agreed to permanently exclude her son who had engaged in criminal activity from her apartment, is supported by substantial evidence, including petitioner’s concession that the excluded individual was discovered in her apartment (see Matter of Folks v New York City Hous. Auth., 27 AD3d 270 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 709 [2006]; Matter of Romero v Martinez, 280 AD2d 58 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 721 [2001]). The penalty of termination does not shock our sense of fairness, particularly in view of the son’s serious criminal activity and the stipulation’s clear provision that his presence in the apartment would result in termination of petitioner’s tenancy (see Matter of Wooten v Finkle, 285 AD2d 407 [2001]). Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Andrias, Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Respondent’s finding that petitioner failed to comply with the [413]*413terms of a stipulation in which she agreed to permanently exclude her son who had engaged in criminal activity from her apartment, is supported by substantial evidence, including petitioner’s concession that the excluded individual was discovered in her apartment (see Matter of Folks v New York City Hous. Auth., 27 AD3d 270 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 709 [2006]; Matter of Romero v Martinez, 280 AD2d 58 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 721 [2001]). The penalty of termination does not shock our sense of fairness, particularly in view of the son’s serious criminal activity and the stipulation’s clear provision that his presence in the apartment would result in termination of petitioner’s tenancy (see Matter of Wooten v Finkle, 285 AD2d 407 [2001]). Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Andrias, Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 412, 918 N.Y.2d 42, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gibbs-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack