Moore v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moore v. New York City Housing Authority

134 A.D.3d 493, 19 N.Y.S.3d 895

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

DecidedDecember 10, 2015

Docket16379 452166/13

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 134 A.D.3d 493 (Moore v. New York City Housing Authority) 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

Moore v. New York City Housing Authority, 134 A.D.3d 493, 19 N.Y.S.3d 895 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered July 17, 2014, which, in this hybrid action and CPLR article 78 proceeding, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint asserting claims for violation of federal, state, and city anti-discrimination laws, and seeking, inter alia, to annul the determination to terminate plaintiff’s tenancy, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Substantial evidence supports the finding that plaintiff violated his lease, agency rules and was a nondesirable tenant *494 (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176 [1978]; Matter of Hobbs v New York City Hous. Auth., 128 AD3d 582 [1st Dept 2015]). The record shows, among other things, that plaintiff started a fire inside his apartment and barricaded himself inside placing himself and others at risk. Defendants permissibly refused to accommodate plaintiff by continuing his tenancy subject to probationary monitoring of his mental health treatment (see Hobbs at 583; Matter of Canales v Hernandez, 13 AD3d 263 [1st Dept 2004]).

Under the circumstances presented, the termination of plaintiff’s tenancy does not shock our sense of fairness (see Hobbs at 583). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Richter, ManzanetDaniels and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered July 17, 2014, which, in this hybrid action and CPLR article 78 proceeding, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint asserting claims for violation of federal, state, and city anti-discrimination laws, and seeking, inter alia, to annul the determination to terminate plaintiff’s tenancy, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Substantial evidence supports the finding that plaintiff violated his lease, agency rules and was a nondesirable tenant *494 (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176 [1978]; Matter of Hobbs v New York City Hous. Auth., 128 AD3d 582 [1st Dept 2015]). The record shows, among other things, that plaintiff started a fire inside his apartment and barricaded himself inside placing himself and others at risk. Defendants permissibly refused to accommodate plaintiff by continuing his tenancy subject to probationary monitoring of his mental health treatment (see Hobbs at 583; Matter of Canales v Hernandez, 13 AD3d 263 [1st Dept 2004]).

Under the circumstances presented, the termination of plaintiff’s tenancy does not shock our sense of fairness (see Hobbs at 583). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Richter, ManzanetDaniels and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A.D.3d 493, 19 N.Y.S.3d 895, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack