James v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development

85 A.D.3d 637, 925 N.Y.S.2d 815

This text of 85 A.D.3d 637 (James v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development) 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
James v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development, 85 A.D.3d 637, 925 N.Y.S.2d 815 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

In this proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Martin Schoenfeld, J.], entered August 13, 2010), to annul the determination of respondent New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, dated January 13, 2010, which, following a hearing, terminated petitioner’s Section 8 rent subsidy effective February 28, 2010, the petition is unanimously granted, without costs, the determination of respondent is annulled and vacated, and petitioner’s Section 8 rent subsidy is reinstated retroactive to February 28, 2010.

Respondent’s determination was not supported by substantial evidence (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 179-182 [1978]). The hearing officer’s credibility determination is not entitled to deference in this case. The substitute hearing officer was not present at the original informal hearing. The decision was rendered based on, inter alia, an incomplete audio recording and not on the hearing officer’s observations of the petitioner’s demeanor as she testified. Furthermore, the hearing officer did not even have a copy of the hearing transcript at the time he made his decision because it was prepared months afterwards (cf. Matter of Melendez v Cestero, 79 AD3d 603, 604 [2010]). Finally, we note [638]*638that the determination of the substitute hearing officer was issued almost two years after the informal hearing.

In view of the foregoing, we need not reach petitioner’s remaining contention. Concur — Saxe, J.P., Sweeny, Catterson, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Related

300 Gramatan Avenue Associates v. State Division of Human Rights
379 N.E.2d 1183 (New York Court of Appeals, 1978)
Melendez v. Cestero
79 A.D.3d 603 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
85 A.D.3d 637, 925 N.Y.S.2d 815, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-v-new-york-city-department-of-housing-preservation-development-nyappdiv-2011.