Liverman v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Liverman v. New York City Housing Authority

118 A.D.3d 580, 988 N.Y.S.2d 178

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 19, 2014·Published

Opinion

Determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), dated September 12, 2012, terminating petitioner’s 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 [Cynthia S. Kern, J.], entered May 15, 2013), dismissed, without costs.

The determination that petitioner violated stipulations requiring her to permanently exclude her grandson from the subject apartment is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Gibbs v New York City Hous. Auth., 82 AD3d 412 [1st Dept 2011]). The record shows that petitioner permitted two NYCHA investigators into her apartment pursuant to the stipulations’ provisions for unannounced visits to confirm petitioner’s compliance with the permanent exclusion, and that the grandson was found in the apartment’s living room and admitted to having been in apartment for over four hours by the time the investigators arrived.

Under the circumstances presented, including that petitioner violated at least three exclusion stipulations dating back to 2006, the penalty of termination does not shock our sense of [581] fairness (see Matter of Horne v New York City Hous. Auth., 113 AD3d 575 [1st Dept 2014]; Gibbs, 82 AD3d at 413; Matter of Wooten v Finkle, 285 AD2d 407, 408-409 [1st Dept 2001]).

Concur—Tom, J.E, Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), dated September 12, 2012, terminating petitioner’s 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 [Cynthia S. Kern, J.], entered May 15, 2013), dismissed, without costs.

The determination that petitioner violated stipulations requiring her to permanently exclude her grandson from the subject apartment is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Gibbs v New York City Hous. Auth., 82 AD3d 412 [1st Dept 2011]). The record shows that petitioner permitted two NYCHA investigators into her apartment pursuant to the stipulations’ provisions for unannounced visits to confirm petitioner’s compliance with the permanent exclusion, and that the grandson was found in the apartment’s living room and admitted to having been in apartment for over four hours by the time the investigators arrived.

Under the circumstances presented, including that petitioner violated at least three exclusion stipulations dating back to 2006, the penalty of termination does not shock our sense of [581] fairness (see Matter of Horne v New York City Hous. Auth., 113 AD3d 575 [1st Dept 2014]; Gibbs, 82 AD3d at 413; Matter of Wooten v Finkle, 285 AD2d 407, 408-409 [1st Dept 2001]).

Concur—Tom, J.E, Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

Liverman v. New York City Housing Authority, 118 A.D.3d 580, 988 N.Y.S.2d 178 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

118 A.D.3d 580 (Liverman v. New York City Housing Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related