Matter of Antonoffsky v. Torres-Springer

2019 NY Slip Op 4109
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 28, 2019
Docket9443 100260/17
StatusPublished

This text of 2019 NY Slip Op 4109 (Matter of Antonoffsky v. Torres-Springer) 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
Matter of Antonoffsky v. Torres-Springer, 2019 NY Slip Op 4109 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

Matter of Antonoffsky v Torres-Springer (2019 NY Slip Op 04109)
Matter of Antonoffsky v Torres-Springer
2019 NY Slip Op 04109
Decided on May 28, 2019
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on May 28, 2019
Sweeny, J.P., Richter, Kapnick, Oing, Singh, JJ.

9443 100260/17

[*1]In re J. Phinias Antonoffsky, Petitioner,

v

Maria Torres-Springer, etc., Respondent.


William E. Leavitt, New York, for petitioner.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Anna B. Wolonciej of counsel), for respondent.



Determination of respondent, dated November 3, 2016, which, after a hearing, denied petitioner's request for accommodations in lieu of termination from respondent's Section 8 rent subsidy program, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and this proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Nancy M. Bannon, J.], entered on or about April 25, 2018), dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence supports the finding that the petitioner's proposed accommodations, periodic drug testing and drug inspections, would be unduly burdensome, requiring a fundamental change to a housing agency that does not employ health care or law enforcement personnel (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180 [1978]; Moore v New York City Hous. Auth, 134 AD3d 493, 494 [1st Dept 2015]).

We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: MAY 28, 2019

CLERK



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

Related

Moore v. New York City Housing Authority
134 A.D.3d 493 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
300 Gramatan Avenue Associates v. State Division of Human Rights
379 N.E.2d 1183 (New York Court of Appeals, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2019 NY Slip Op 4109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-antonoffsky-v-torres-springer-nyappdiv-2019.