Morman v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morman v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development

81 A.D.3d 528, 916 N.Y.S.2d 507

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 17, 2011·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Determination of respondent New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, dated December 9, 2008, which terminated petitioner’s enhanced Section 8 rent subsidy, 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 [Michael D. Stallman, J.], entered Nov. 5, 2009), dismissed, without costs.

Respondent’s determination was supported by substantial evidence. The record demonstrates that petitioner violated the agency’s policies requiring truthful and complete reporting of household composition and income information on the application and recertification forms (see Matter of Hussain v Donovan, 73 AD3d 573 [2010]; Matter of Gerena v Donovan, 51 AD3d 502 [2008]). In reaching its determination, respondent did not deviate from the regulatory framework governing income verification (cf. Matter of Frick v Bahou, 56 NY2d 777, 778 [1982]).

The penalty imposed was not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (see Hussain at 573). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, dated December 9, 2008, which terminated petitioner’s enhanced Section 8 rent subsidy, 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 [Michael D. Stallman, J.], entered Nov. 5, 2009), dismissed, without costs.

Respondent’s determination was supported by substantial evidence. The record demonstrates that petitioner violated the agency’s policies requiring truthful and complete reporting of household composition and income information on the application and recertification forms (see Matter of Hussain v Donovan, 73 AD3d 573 [2010]; Matter of Gerena v Donovan, 51 AD3d 502 [2008]). In reaching its determination, respondent did not deviate from the regulatory framework governing income verification (cf. Matter of Frick v Bahou, 56 NY2d 777, 778 [1982]).

The penalty imposed was not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (see Hussain at 573). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Morman v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development, 81 A.D.3d 528, 916 N.Y.S.2d 507 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

81 A.D.3d 528 (Morman v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related