Hallums v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hallums v. New York City Housing Authority

117 A.D.3d 525, 985 N.Y.S.2d 545

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

DecidedMay 13, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 117 A.D.3d 525 (Hallums 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

Hallums v. New York City Housing Authority, 117 A.D.3d 525, 985 N.Y.S.2d 545 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent, dated March 7, 2012, which, after a hearing, terminated petitioner’s public housing tenancy, 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 [Peter H. Moulton, J.], entered October 18, 2012), dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence supports the determination that petitioner violated a 2010 stipulation that permanently excluded her son from her apartment based on his involvement in illegal drug activity (see Latoni v New York City Hous. Auth., 95 AD3d 611 [1st Dept 2012]). There exists no basis to disturb the credibility determinations of the Hearing Officer (see generally Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444 [1987]).

Under the circumstances presented, the penalty of termination does not shock our sense of fairness (see Matter of Cruz v New York City Hous. Auth., 106 AD3d 631 [1st Dept 2013]).

Concur—Tom, J.E, Acosta, Moskowitz, Gische and Clark, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent, dated March 7, 2012, which, after a hearing, terminated petitioner’s public housing tenancy, 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 [Peter H. Moulton, J.], entered October 18, 2012), dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence supports the determination that petitioner violated a 2010 stipulation that permanently excluded her son from her apartment based on his involvement in illegal drug activity (see Latoni v New York City Hous. Auth., 95 AD3d 611 [1st Dept 2012]). There exists no basis to disturb the credibility determinations of the Hearing Officer (see generally Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444 [1987]).

Under the circumstances presented, the penalty of termination does not shock our sense of fairness (see Matter of Cruz v New York City Hous. Auth., 106 AD3d 631 [1st Dept 2013]).

Concur—Tom, J.E, Acosta, Moskowitz, Gische and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 A.D.3d 525, 985 N.Y.S.2d 545, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hallums-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack