Langton v. Rutkoske

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Langton v. Rutkoske

252 A.D.2d 504, 676 N.Y.S.2d 494, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8019

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 6, 1998·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Executive Director of the Town of Islip Housing Authority, dated December 11, 1996, which, after a hearing, terminated the petitioner’s assistance from the Section 8 Housing Assistance Program.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

Following a hearing, the respondent Town of Islip Housing Authority determined that the petitioner committed two violations of 24 CFR 982.551 (b) (2) in that she misrepresented her family composition and misrepresented her income. Based upon our review of the record, we find the respondents’ determination to be supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443; 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 179). Thus, the determination must be sustained, regardless of whether a similar quantum of evidence is available to support a varying conclusion (see, Matter of Collins v Codd, 38 NY2d 269, 270).

We have considered the petitioner’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Copertino, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Executive Director of the Town of Islip Housing Authority, dated December 11, 1996, which, after a hearing, terminated the petitioner’s assistance from the Section 8 Housing Assistance Program.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

Following a hearing, the respondent Town of Islip Housing Authority determined that the petitioner committed two violations of 24 CFR 982.551 (b) (2) in that she misrepresented her family composition and misrepresented her income. Based upon our review of the record, we find the respondents’ determination to be supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443; 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 179). Thus, the determination must be sustained, regardless of whether a similar quantum of evidence is available to support a varying conclusion (see, Matter of Collins v Codd, 38 NY2d 269, 270).

We have considered the petitioner’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Copertino, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Langton v. Rutkoske, 252 A.D.2d 504, 676 N.Y.S.2d 494, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8019 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

252 A.D.2d 504 (Langton v. Rutkoske) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related