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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

126 A.D.3d 649, 4 N.Y.S.3d 484

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

DecidedMarch 31, 2015

Docket14674 401156/13

StatusPublished

This text of 126 A.D.3d 649 (Matter of Rivera v. New York City Hous. Auth.) 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 Rivera v. New York City Hous. Auth., 126 A.D.3d 649, 4 N.Y.S.3d 484 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent (NYCHA), dated March 28, 2013, 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 the Supreme Court, New York County [Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.], entered Feb. 27, 2014), dismissed, without costs.

Petitioner concedes that there is substantial evidence to support the conclusion that he breached NYCHA rules and regulations by engaging in drug activity (see Matter of Nelke v Department of Motor Vehs. of the State of N.Y., 79 AD3d 433 [1st Dept *650 2010]). He contends that there is not substantial evidence to support the hearing officer’s finding that although he has demonstrated that “he is making a good faith effort to rehabilitate himself, an insufficient amount of time has elapsed to draw any definitive and reasonable conclusions as to his rehabilitation.” However, it is appropriate to consider the passage of time since the misconduct in evaluating rehabilitation (see Matter of Wiesner, 94 AD3d 167, 173 [1st Dept 2012]). At the time of the hearing, petitioner was still on probation, had completed only one of the two programs he was required to complete, and was still subject to drug testing.

The penalty of termination of tenancy is not shocking to our sense of fairness (see e.g. Latoni v New York City Hous. Auth., 95 AD3d 611 [1st Dept 2012]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Moskowitz, Richter and Clark, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent (NYCHA), dated March 28, 2013, 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 the Supreme Court, New York County [Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.], entered Feb. 27, 2014), dismissed, without costs.

Petitioner concedes that there is substantial evidence to support the conclusion that he breached NYCHA rules and regulations by engaging in drug activity (see Matter of Nelke v Department of Motor Vehs. of the State of N.Y., 79 AD3d 433 [1st Dept *650 2010]). He contends that there is not substantial evidence to support the hearing officer’s finding that although he has demonstrated that “he is making a good faith effort to rehabilitate himself, an insufficient amount of time has elapsed to draw any definitive and reasonable conclusions as to his rehabilitation.” However, it is appropriate to consider the passage of time since the misconduct in evaluating rehabilitation (see Matter of Wiesner, 94 AD3d 167, 173 [1st Dept 2012]). At the time of the hearing, petitioner was still on probation, had completed only one of the two programs he was required to complete, and was still subject to drug testing.

The penalty of termination of tenancy is not shocking to our sense of fairness (see e.g. Latoni v New York City Hous. Auth., 95 AD3d 611 [1st Dept 2012]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Moskowitz, Richter and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.3d 649, 4 N.Y.S.3d 484, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-rivera-v-new-york-city-hous-auth-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack