Hertwig-Brilliant v. Wright

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hertwig-Brilliant v. Wright

211 A.D.2d 578, 622 N.Y.S.2d 450

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

DecidedJanuary 26, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 211 A.D.2d 578 (Hertwig-Brilliant v. Wright) 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

Hertwig-Brilliant v. Wright, 211 A.D.2d 578, 622 N.Y.S.2d 450 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of the respondent Commissioner dated April 4, 1994, which, on remand, inter alia, adhered to its determination dated February 2, 1993 authorizing respondent Ruppert Housing, Inc. to proceed with eviction proceedings against petitioner, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the CPLR article 78 proceeding (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Stanley Parness, J.], entered on or about June 7, 1994), is dismissed, without costs.

[579]*579The Hearing Officer’s conclusion that there was no reason to believe that petitioner’s conduct in the future would improve was neither arbitrary nor capricious, and had a rational basis. The evidence demonstrates that, among other things, petitioner has failed to consistently medicate himself with the prescribed drug, Clozapine; the drug has not been very successful with respect to petitioner; and, petitioner continues to be prone to act out his hostility and distrust.

Petitioner’s claim that he was discriminated against because of his mental disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act is unfounded in light of petitioner’s continued threat to the safety of other individuals in the cooperative. (See, 42 USC § 3604 [fj [9].)

We have considered petitioner’s other arguments and have found them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.

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

Determination of the respondent Commissioner dated April 4, 1994, which, on remand, inter alia, adhered to its determination dated February 2, 1993 authorizing respondent Ruppert Housing, Inc. to proceed with eviction proceedings against petitioner, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the CPLR article 78 proceeding (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Stanley Parness, J.], entered on or about June 7, 1994), is dismissed, without costs.

[579]*579The Hearing Officer’s conclusion that there was no reason to believe that petitioner’s conduct in the future would improve was neither arbitrary nor capricious, and had a rational basis. The evidence demonstrates that, among other things, petitioner has failed to consistently medicate himself with the prescribed drug, Clozapine; the drug has not been very successful with respect to petitioner; and, petitioner continues to be prone to act out his hostility and distrust.

Petitioner’s claim that he was discriminated against because of his mental disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act is unfounded in light of petitioner’s continued threat to the safety of other individuals in the cooperative. (See, 42 USC § 3604 [fj [9].)

We have considered petitioner’s other arguments and have found them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 A.D.2d 578, 622 N.Y.S.2d 450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hertwig-brilliant-v-wright-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack