McCarter v. Franco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McCarter v. Franco

227 A.D.2d 358, 643 N.Y.S.2d 84, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6168

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

DecidedMay 30, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 227 A.D.2d 358 (McCarter v. Franco) 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

McCarter v. Franco, 227 A.D.2d 358, 643 N.Y.S.2d 84, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6168 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Hansel McGee, J.), entered on or about February 2, 1995, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent-appellant’s determination terminating petitioner’s public housing tenancy, granted the petition and denied the cross motion to transfer the matter to this Court, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly found that petitioner was denied due process at the administrative hearing since he was precluded from presenting evidence and witnesses to dispute respondent’s charges against him. We note the petitioner made it clear, prior to the determination, that he had not rested his [359]*359case. This error is dispositive and sufficient to "terminate” this proceeding within the meaning of CPLR 7804 (g); thus, the IAS Court properly denied the cross motion to transfer the proceeding pursuant to that subdivision. We have considered respondent-appellant’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Hansel McGee, J.), entered on or about February 2, 1995, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent-appellant’s determination terminating petitioner’s public housing tenancy, granted the petition and denied the cross motion to transfer the matter to this Court, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly found that petitioner was denied due process at the administrative hearing since he was precluded from presenting evidence and witnesses to dispute respondent’s charges against him. We note the petitioner made it clear, prior to the determination, that he had not rested his [359]*359case. This error is dispositive and sufficient to "terminate” this proceeding within the meaning of CPLR 7804 (g); thus, the IAS Court properly denied the cross motion to transfer the proceeding pursuant to that subdivision. We have considered respondent-appellant’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 A.D.2d 358, 643 N.Y.S.2d 84, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccarter-v-franco-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack