Roth v. City of Syracuse

Second Circuit

Roth v. City of Syracuse

4 F. App'x 86

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedFebruary 20, 2001

DocketNo. 00-7727

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 4 F. App'x 86 (Roth v. City of Syracuse) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Roth v. City of Syracuse, 4 F. App'x 86 (2d Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

This cause came on to be heard on the record from the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, and was argued by counsel for appellants and the City appellees, and was submitted by counsel for the Housing Authority appellees.

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is now hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is affirmed substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Mordue’s Memorandum-Decision and Order dated May 5, 2000. Giving consideration to 24 C.F.R. § 982.306 as a whole, which provides housing authorities with considerable discretion to determine which landlords may participate in Section 8 programs and states that “[njothing in this rule is intended to give any owner any right to participate in the program,” see id. § 982.306(e), we conclude that plaintiffs did not show an entitlement to participate in such programs or a property interest sufficient to support their due process claims.

We have considered all of plaintiffs’ contentions on this appeal and have found them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

This cause came on to be heard on the record from the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, and was argued by counsel for appellants and the City appellees, and was submitted by counsel for the Housing Authority appellees.

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is now hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is affirmed substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Mordue’s Memorandum-Decision and Order dated May 5, 2000. Giving consideration to 24 C.F.R. § 982.306 as a whole, which provides housing authorities with considerable discretion to determine which landlords may participate in Section 8 programs and states that “[njothing in this rule is intended to give any owner any right to participate in the program,” see id. § 982.306(e), we conclude that plaintiffs did not show an entitlement to participate in such programs or a property interest sufficient to support their due process claims.

We have considered all of plaintiffs’ contentions on this appeal and have found them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 F. App'x 86, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roth-v-city-of-syracuse-ca2-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack