Matter of Quinones v. New York City Hous. Auth.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Quinones v. New York City Hous. Auth.

129 A.D.3d 537, 10 N.Y.S.3d 431

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 16, 2015·No. 15446 400415/14·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Determination of respondent, dated March 6, 2014, which, after a hearing, terminated petitioner’s public housing 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 June 16, 2014), dismissed, without costs.

The determination that petitioner violated a stipulation that excluded her son from her apartment is supported by substantial evidence (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180-181 [1978]). The record shows that petitioner repeatedly failed to exclude her son from the premises, despite having agreed to do so on multiple occasions.

Under the circumstances presented, the penalty of termination does not shock our sense of fairness (see e.g. Matter of Lopez v New York City Hous. Auth., 121 AD3d 610 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 917 [2015]; Matter of Grant v New York City Hous. Auth., 116 AD3d 630 [1st Dept 2014]).

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Renwick, Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent, dated March 6, 2014, which, after a hearing, terminated petitioner’s public housing 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 June 16, 2014), dismissed, without costs.

The determination that petitioner violated a stipulation that excluded her son from her apartment is supported by substantial evidence (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180-181 [1978]). The record shows that petitioner repeatedly failed to exclude her son from the premises, despite having agreed to do so on multiple occasions.

Under the circumstances presented, the penalty of termination does not shock our sense of fairness (see e.g. Matter of Lopez v New York City Hous. Auth., 121 AD3d 610 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 917 [2015]; Matter of Grant v New York City Hous. Auth., 116 AD3d 630 [1st Dept 2014]).

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Renwick, Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.

Matter of Quinones v. New York City Hous. Auth., 129 A.D.3d 537, 10 N.Y.S.3d 431 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

129 A.D.3d 537 (Matter of Quinones v. New York City Hous. Auth.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related