Sanchez v. Popolizio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sanchez v. Popolizio

156 A.D.2d 210, 548 N.Y.S.2d 471, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15463

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

DecidedDecember 12, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 156 A.D.2d 210 (Sanchez v. Popolizio) 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

Sanchez v. Popolizio, 156 A.D.2d 210, 548 N.Y.S.2d 471, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15463 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Irving Kirschenbaum, J.), entered on November 21, 1988, to review a determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority dated August 17, 1988, which terminated petitioner’s section 8 Existing Housing Program subsidy on the grounds of fraud, is unanimously dismissed and the determination confirmed, without costs and disbursements.

We find that the determination of the Hearing Officer was amply supported by the record (Matter of Stork Rest, v Boland, 282 NY 256, 267; Matter of Wiener v Gabel, 18 AD2d 1025). Additionally, the penalty imposed by the administrative body will not be set aside by this court unless " 'the measure of punishment or discipline imposed is so disproportionate to the offense, in the light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness’ ” (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 233). We are unable to make such a finding in the instant case.

Finally, because the petitioner’s misrepresentation resulted in an overpayment of subsidy, such money is subject to recoupment (New York City Hous. Auth. v Stem, 3 Misc 2d 1007; 42 USC § 1437). Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Asch, Kassal, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Irving Kirschenbaum, J.), entered on November 21, 1988, to review a determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority dated August 17, 1988, which terminated petitioner’s section 8 Existing Housing Program subsidy on the grounds of fraud, is unanimously dismissed and the determination confirmed, without costs and disbursements.

We find that the determination of the Hearing Officer was amply supported by the record (Matter of Stork Rest, v Boland, 282 NY 256, 267; Matter of Wiener v Gabel, 18 AD2d 1025). Additionally, the penalty imposed by the administrative body will not be set aside by this court unless " 'the measure of punishment or discipline imposed is so disproportionate to the offense, in the light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness’ ” (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 233). We are unable to make such a finding in the instant case.

Finally, because the petitioner’s misrepresentation resulted in an overpayment of subsidy, such money is subject to recoupment (New York City Hous. Auth. v Stem, 3 Misc 2d 1007; 42 USC § 1437). Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Asch, Kassal, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 A.D.2d 210, 548 N.Y.S.2d 471, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanchez-v-popolizio-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack