Ortiz v. Franco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ortiz v. Franco

259 A.D.2d 445, 687 N.Y.S.2d 345, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3260

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

DecidedMarch 30, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 445 (Ortiz 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

Ortiz v. Franco, 259 A.D.2d 445, 687 N.Y.S.2d 345, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3260 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority, dated October 1, 1997, which terminated petitioner’s 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 [William Wetzel, J.], entered July 24, 1998), dismissed, without costs.

The finding of nondesirability based on the presence of a substantial amount of crack cocaine in petitioner’s apartment was supported by substantial evidence consisting of the testimony of the police officer who arrested petitioner and other occupants of her apartment and who participated in the execution of the search warrant (see, Matter of Ortiz v New York City Hous. Auth., 245 AD2d 86). The penalty of eviction for the drug possession offense is not shocking to our sense of fairness where petitioner failed to mount a credible defense that she was unaware of some 2,000 vials of crack cocaine, some of which were in open view, in her apartment, and, moreover, pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, a D felony, in this regard. We have considered petitioner’s remaining argument and find it unavailing. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority, dated October 1, 1997, which terminated petitioner’s 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 [William Wetzel, J.], entered July 24, 1998), dismissed, without costs.

The finding of nondesirability based on the presence of a substantial amount of crack cocaine in petitioner’s apartment was supported by substantial evidence consisting of the testimony of the police officer who arrested petitioner and other occupants of her apartment and who participated in the execution of the search warrant (see, Matter of Ortiz v New York City Hous. Auth., 245 AD2d 86). The penalty of eviction for the drug possession offense is not shocking to our sense of fairness where petitioner failed to mount a credible defense that she was unaware of some 2,000 vials of crack cocaine, some of which were in open view, in her apartment, and, moreover, pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, a D felony, in this regard. We have considered petitioner’s remaining argument and find it unavailing. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 445, 687 N.Y.S.2d 345, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ortiz-v-franco-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack