Telleria v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Telleria v. New York City Housing Authority

4 A.D.3d 312, 771 N.Y.S.2d 667, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2007

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 26, 2004·Published

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin Diamond, J.), entered March 20, 2003, which dismissed the petition to annul a determination denying an application for low-income housing assistance, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner was unable to avail herself of the opportunity to demonstrate that her son would not be returning to reside in her household upon his release from prison, where he was serving a sentence for a felony conviction. This rendered her ineligi[313]*313ble for “Section 8” housing benefits. Since respondent’s determination was rationally based, and was not arbitrary and capricious, it cannot be judicially disturbed (see Flacke v Onondaga Landfill Sys., 69 NY2d 355, 363-364 [1987]). Moreover, the court properly refused to consider petitioner’s belated presentation of a letter from the Division of Parole, which was not part of the administrative record (Matter of Faison v New York City Hous. Auth., 283 AD2d 353, 357 [2001]). Concur— Nardelli, J.P, Mazzarelli, Saxe and Lerner, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin Diamond, J.), entered March 20, 2003, which dismissed the petition to annul a determination denying an application for low-income housing assistance, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner was unable to avail herself of the opportunity to demonstrate that her son would not be returning to reside in her household upon his release from prison, where he was serving a sentence for a felony conviction. This rendered her ineligi[313]*313ble for “Section 8” housing benefits. Since respondent’s determination was rationally based, and was not arbitrary and capricious, it cannot be judicially disturbed (see Flacke v Onondaga Landfill Sys., 69 NY2d 355, 363-364 [1987]). Moreover, the court properly refused to consider petitioner’s belated presentation of a letter from the Division of Parole, which was not part of the administrative record (Matter of Faison v New York City Hous. Auth., 283 AD2d 353, 357 [2001]). Concur— Nardelli, J.P, Mazzarelli, Saxe and Lerner, JJ.

Telleria v. New York City Housing Authority, 4 A.D.3d 312, 771 N.Y.S.2d 667, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2007 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

4 A.D.3d 312 (Telleria v. New York City Housing Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related