Livingston v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Livingston v. New York City Housing Authority

23 A.D.3d 218, 805 N.Y.S.2d 10

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

DecidedNovember 10, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.3d 218 (Livingston 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

Livingston v. New York City Housing Authority, 23 A.D.3d 218, 805 N.Y.S.2d 10 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

[219]*219Determination of respondent Housing Authority, dated June 16, 2004, terminating the subject tenancy, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Lottie F. Wilkins, J], entered November 23, 2004) dismissed, without costs.

The determination is supported by substantial evidence that petitioner breached respondent’s rules and regulations by permitting dogs, possessed by her or her guests or family members, to remain unleashed on Housing Authority premises and menace and inflict injury upon other tenants. The determination is additionally supported by substantial evidence that petitioner refused to discontinue use of a faulty washing machine, which repeatedly caused damage to the apartment beneath hers. No basis exists to disturb the hearing officer’s credibility determinations (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444 [1987]). The penalty does not shock our sense of fairness (see Matter of Wooten v Finkle, 285 AD2d 407, 408-409 [2001]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

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

[219]*219Determination of respondent Housing Authority, dated June 16, 2004, terminating the subject tenancy, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Lottie F. Wilkins, J], entered November 23, 2004) dismissed, without costs.

The determination is supported by substantial evidence that petitioner breached respondent’s rules and regulations by permitting dogs, possessed by her or her guests or family members, to remain unleashed on Housing Authority premises and menace and inflict injury upon other tenants. The determination is additionally supported by substantial evidence that petitioner refused to discontinue use of a faulty washing machine, which repeatedly caused damage to the apartment beneath hers. No basis exists to disturb the hearing officer’s credibility determinations (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444 [1987]). The penalty does not shock our sense of fairness (see Matter of Wooten v Finkle, 285 AD2d 407, 408-409 [2001]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.3d 218, 805 N.Y.S.2d 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/livingston-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack