Matter of Mack v. NYCHA Red Hook W. Houses

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Mack v. NYCHA Red Hook W. Houses

127 A.D.3d 1198, 5 N.Y.S.3d 905

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

DecidedApril 29, 2015

Docket2013-04593

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 127 A.D.3d 1198 (Matter of Mack v. NYCHA Red Hook W. Houses) 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 Mack v. NYCHA Red Hook W. Houses, 127 A.D.3d 1198, 5 N.Y.S.3d 905 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York City Housing Authority, dated July 11, 2012, which adopted the recommendation of a hearing officer dated June 8, 2012, made after a hearing, finding that the petitioner was ineligible to continue his occupancy of an apartment in a public housing development on the ground of, inter alia, nondesirability, and terminated his tenancy.

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

*1199 Review of an administrative determination made after a trial-type hearing directed by law is limited to whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Jennings v New York State Off of Mental Health, 90 NY2d 227, 239 [1997]; Matter of Harrison v Palumbo, 122 AD3d 634, 635 [2014]). Here, substantial evidence was adduced at the hearing to support the conclusion of the New York City Housing Authority that the petitioner engaged in “drug-related criminal activity” in violation of the terms of his tenancy (see 42 USC §§ 1437d [1] [6]; 1437f [d] [1] [B] [iii]; see also 24 CFR 5.858, 247.3 [a] [3]; 966.4 [f] [12] [i] [B]; Matter of Bond v Howard Houses [NYCHA], 89 AD3d 730 [2011]; Matter of Morales v Department of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 83 AD3d 1075 [2011]; Matter of Brown v New York City Hous. Auth., 27 AD3d 733, 734 [2006]). The imposed penalty of termination of the petitioner’s lease was not so disproportionate to the offense, in light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 233 [1974]; Matter of Smith v Tuckahoe Hous. Auth., 111 AD3d 642, 643 [2013]; Matter of Bond v Howard Houses [NYCHA], 89 AD3d at 730-731).

Eng, P.J., Leventhal, Hall and Roman, 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 New York City Housing Authority, dated July 11, 2012, which adopted the recommendation of a hearing officer dated June 8, 2012, made after a hearing, finding that the petitioner was ineligible to continue his occupancy of an apartment in a public housing development on the ground of, inter alia, nondesirability, and terminated his tenancy.

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

*1199 Review of an administrative determination made after a trial-type hearing directed by law is limited to whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Jennings v New York State Off of Mental Health, 90 NY2d 227, 239 [1997]; Matter of Harrison v Palumbo, 122 AD3d 634, 635 [2014]). Here, substantial evidence was adduced at the hearing to support the conclusion of the New York City Housing Authority that the petitioner engaged in “drug-related criminal activity” in violation of the terms of his tenancy (see 42 USC §§ 1437d [1] [6]; 1437f [d] [1] [B] [iii]; see also 24 CFR 5.858, 247.3 [a] [3]; 966.4 [f] [12] [i] [B]; Matter of Bond v Howard Houses [NYCHA], 89 AD3d 730 [2011]; Matter of Morales v Department of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 83 AD3d 1075 [2011]; Matter of Brown v New York City Hous. Auth., 27 AD3d 733, 734 [2006]). The imposed penalty of termination of the petitioner’s lease was not so disproportionate to the offense, in light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 233 [1974]; Matter of Smith v Tuckahoe Hous. Auth., 111 AD3d 642, 643 [2013]; Matter of Bond v Howard Houses [NYCHA], 89 AD3d at 730-731).

Eng, P.J., Leventhal, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.3d 1198, 5 N.Y.S.3d 905, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-mack-v-nycha-red-hook-w-houses-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack