Spand v. Franco

242 A.D.2d 210, 663 N.Y.S.2d 813, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8239
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedAugust 7, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 242 A.D.2d 210 (Spand 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
Spand v. Franco, 242 A.D.2d 210, 663 N.Y.S.2d 813, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8239 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

—Determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority, dated June 7, 1995, which terminated petitioner’s public housing tenancy on the ground of nondesirability, unanimously modified, on the facts, to vacate the penalty of termination, the matter remanded to respondent for imposition of a lesser penalty, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Alice Schlesinger, J.], entered April 12, 1996) is otherwise disposed of by confirming the remainder of the determination, without costs.

A review of the record as a whole shows that the Housing Authority’s determination was supported by substantial evidence. However, it also shows the penalty imposed was so disproportionate “ ‘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). Certainly the behavior petitioner engaged in was serious and was appropriately condemned by respondent, but in the unique circumstances of this case, the eviction of petitioner, a resident for over four years and the mother of three small children, is a disproportionate sanction.

[211]*211Petitioner was involved in one isolated incident, has no other violations and has not presented any other problems to the Housing Authority. There is no indication that she poses any present risk to other tenants or to respondent’s property. Accordingly, we remand this matter to respondent for consideration of a lesser penalty (see, Matter of Vargas v Franco, 238 AD2d 274). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Tom, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Bryant v. Garcia
2021 NY Slip Op 00521 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Rock v. Rhea
114 A.D.3d 578 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Matos v. Hernandez
79 A.D.3d 466 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Palmer v. Rhea
78 A.D.3d 526 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Gray v. Donovan
58 A.D.3d 488 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Davis v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development
58 A.D.3d 418 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Vazquez v. New York City Housing Authority (Robert Fulton Houses)
57 A.D.3d 360 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Domen Holding Co. v. Aranovich
302 A.D.2d 132 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
New York City Housing Authority v. Velazquez
191 Misc. 2d 15 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Peoples v. New York City Housing Authority
281 A.D.2d 259 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Johnson v. New York City Housing Authority
266 A.D.2d 102 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Williams v. Franco
262 A.D.2d 45 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Ortiz v. New York City Housing Authority
245 A.D.2d 86 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
242 A.D.2d 210, 663 N.Y.S.2d 813, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spand-v-franco-nyappdiv-1997.