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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

105 A.D.3d 401, 962 N.Y.S.2d 123

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

DecidedApril 2, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 105 A.D.3d 401 (Perrette v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development) 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

Perrette v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development, 105 A.D.3d 401, 962 N.Y.S.2d 123 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), dated February 24, 2010, which, after a hearing, terminated petitioner’s 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 [Cynthia S. Kern, J.], entered October 20, 2010), dismissed, without costs.

The Hearing Officer’s finding that petitioner intentionally failed to report approximately $30,000 of income earned by her daughter during a three-year period is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Purdy v Kreisberg, 47 NY2d 354, 358 [1979]). He also found that while petitioner would not be able to afford the apartment without assistance, she will not be rendered homeless as a result of the termination of the subsidy, and that there are no mitigating circumstances sufficient to warrant reversal of HPD’s termination of the benefits. Here, as in Matter of Perez v Rhea (20 NY3d 399, 405 [2013]), “termination of petitioner’s tenancy was not ‘so disproportionate to the offense, in the light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness.’ ” As noted by the Court in Perez, “[a] vital public interest underlies the need to enforce income rules pertaining to public housing. . . . The deterrent value of eviction ... is clearly significant and supports the purposes of the limited supply of publicly-supported housing.” (id. at 405.) Notwithstanding the hardship to petitioner, the penalty of [402]*402termination is confirmed (see Matter of Cubilete v Morales, 92 AD3d 470 [1st Dept 2012]).

Concur—Tom, J.E, Andrias, Acosta, Moskowitz and Abdus-Salaam, 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 (HPD), dated February 24, 2010, which, after a hearing, terminated petitioner’s 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 [Cynthia S. Kern, J.], entered October 20, 2010), dismissed, without costs.

The Hearing Officer’s finding that petitioner intentionally failed to report approximately $30,000 of income earned by her daughter during a three-year period is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Purdy v Kreisberg, 47 NY2d 354, 358 [1979]). He also found that while petitioner would not be able to afford the apartment without assistance, she will not be rendered homeless as a result of the termination of the subsidy, and that there are no mitigating circumstances sufficient to warrant reversal of HPD’s termination of the benefits. Here, as in Matter of Perez v Rhea (20 NY3d 399, 405 [2013]), “termination of petitioner’s tenancy was not ‘so disproportionate to the offense, in the light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness.’ ” As noted by the Court in Perez, “[a] vital public interest underlies the need to enforce income rules pertaining to public housing. . . . The deterrent value of eviction ... is clearly significant and supports the purposes of the limited supply of publicly-supported housing.” (id. at 405.) Notwithstanding the hardship to petitioner, the penalty of [402]*402termination is confirmed (see Matter of Cubilete v Morales, 92 AD3d 470 [1st Dept 2012]).

Concur—Tom, J.E, Andrias, Acosta, Moskowitz and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 A.D.3d 401, 962 N.Y.S.2d 123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perrette-v-new-york-city-department-of-housing-preservation-development-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack