Montanez v. Franco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Montanez v. Franco

282 A.D.2d 282, 722 N.Y.S.2d 548, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3650

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

DecidedApril 12, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 282 A.D.2d 282 (Montanez 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

Montanez v. Franco, 282 A.D.2d 282, 722 N.Y.S.2d 548, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3650 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination of respondent City Housing Authority, dated October 21, 1998, terminating petitioner’s public housing tenancy on the ground of nondesirability, 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 [Eileen Bransten, J.], entered November 30, 1999), dismissed, without costs.

The finding of nondesirability is supported by substantial evidence, namely, the past admitted drug selling by petitioner and her “common law” husband in the lobby of their building resulting in their multiple arrests, and the past admitted drug use by petitioner and members of her household in their apart[283]*283ment (see, Matter of Walker v Franco, 275 AD2d 627; Matter of Woody v Franco, 260 AD2d 186, lv denied 94 NY2d 754). The absence of evidence of current drug trafficking or use by petitioner and members of her household does not automatically render credible their testimony as to their rehabilitation, and respondent was free to reject it (see, Matter ofBerenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444). While petitioner’s rehabilitation may have been successful, it remains that, as of the time of the hearing (see, Matter of Feather stone v Franco, 95 NY2d 550, 554-555), she had not completed the drug rehabilitation program and the criminal charges against her were still pending. As for petitioner’s husband, he had never been in any drug rehabilitation programs and he remained unemployed. Nor does the penalty of termination shock our sense of fairness (see, id., at 554). This is not a case of an innocent tenant being penalized for the actions of a family member or for a single isolated instance of indiscretion over an extended tenancy. We have considered petitioner’s other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Williams, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Determination of respondent City Housing Authority, dated October 21, 1998, terminating petitioner’s public housing tenancy on the ground of nondesirability, 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 [Eileen Bransten, J.], entered November 30, 1999), dismissed, without costs.

The finding of nondesirability is supported by substantial evidence, namely, the past admitted drug selling by petitioner and her “common law” husband in the lobby of their building resulting in their multiple arrests, and the past admitted drug use by petitioner and members of her household in their apart[283]*283ment (see, Matter of Walker v Franco, 275 AD2d 627; Matter of Woody v Franco, 260 AD2d 186, lv denied 94 NY2d 754). The absence of evidence of current drug trafficking or use by petitioner and members of her household does not automatically render credible their testimony as to their rehabilitation, and respondent was free to reject it (see, Matter ofBerenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444). While petitioner’s rehabilitation may have been successful, it remains that, as of the time of the hearing (see, Matter of Feather stone v Franco, 95 NY2d 550, 554-555), she had not completed the drug rehabilitation program and the criminal charges against her were still pending. As for petitioner’s husband, he had never been in any drug rehabilitation programs and he remained unemployed. Nor does the penalty of termination shock our sense of fairness (see, id., at 554). This is not a case of an innocent tenant being penalized for the actions of a family member or for a single isolated instance of indiscretion over an extended tenancy. We have considered petitioner’s other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Williams, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 282, 722 N.Y.S.2d 548, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3650, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/montanez-v-franco-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack