Mangine v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mangine v. New York City Housing Authority

140 A.D.2d 523, 528 N.Y.S.2d 416, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5447

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

DecidedMay 16, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 140 A.D.2d 523 (Mangine 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

Mangine v. New York City Housing Authority, 140 A.D.2d 523, 528 N.Y.S.2d 416, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5447 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

The evidence adduced at the hearing conducted by the respondents indicated that the petitioner, a tenant in the respondent New York City Housing Authority’s Coney Island Houses, and her daughter, who resided with her, assaulted a nonresident of the project by biting him. The evidence ad[524]*524duced at the hearing also indicated that the petitioner’s daughter attacked and bit other tenants in the project. In one of these instances, the injury was so severe that amputation of a finger was seriously contemplated. Under these circumstances, the respondents’ determination terminating the petitioner’s tenancy on the ground of nondesirability was based on substantial evidence and should not be disturbed (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222). Nor does the penalty imposed, i.e., termination of the petitioner’s tenancy, shock the conscience under the circumstances presented in the instant proceeding (see, Matter of Forman v New York City Hous. Auth., 110 AD2d 516, revd 66 NY2d 899, on dissenting opn of Ross, J., at App Div).

We have examined petitioner’s remaining argument and find it to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Kooper and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

The evidence adduced at the hearing conducted by the respondents indicated that the petitioner, a tenant in the respondent New York City Housing Authority’s Coney Island Houses, and her daughter, who resided with her, assaulted a nonresident of the project by biting him. The evidence ad[524]*524duced at the hearing also indicated that the petitioner’s daughter attacked and bit other tenants in the project. In one of these instances, the injury was so severe that amputation of a finger was seriously contemplated. Under these circumstances, the respondents’ determination terminating the petitioner’s tenancy on the ground of nondesirability was based on substantial evidence and should not be disturbed (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222). Nor does the penalty imposed, i.e., termination of the petitioner’s tenancy, shock the conscience under the circumstances presented in the instant proceeding (see, Matter of Forman v New York City Hous. Auth., 110 AD2d 516, revd 66 NY2d 899, on dissenting opn of Ross, J., at App Div).

We have examined petitioner’s remaining argument and find it to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Kooper and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.2d 523, 528 N.Y.S.2d 416, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mangine-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack