Devins v. New York City Hous. Auth.
| Decision Date | 23 February 2012 |
| Parties | In re Stephanie G. DEVINS, Petitioner–Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Respondent–Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Stephanie G. Devins, appellant pro se.
Sonya M. Kaloyanides, New York (Andrew M. Lupin of counsel), for respondent.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered October 21, 2010, which denied the CPLR article 78 petition to annul a determination of respondent, dated June 3, 2009, terminating petitioner's tenancy, after a hearing, upon grounds of chronic rent delinquency and harassment of a former co-tenant, and dismissed the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Respondent's determination that petitioner was chronically delinquent in payment of rent was supported by substantial evidence ( see Matter of Purdy v. Kreisberg, 47 N.Y.2d 354, 358, 418 N.Y.S.2d 329, 391 N.E.2d 1307 [1979] ), including a Housing Court Stipulation dated January 28, 2008, in which petitioner agreed to pay $3,506.55 in arrears; testimony from her housing development's assistant manager, expressly credited by the hearing officer ( see Matter of Porter v. New York City Hous. Auth., 42 A.D.3d 314, 314, 837 N.Y.S.2d 875 [2007] ), that petitioner had not paid rent since August 2007 and, by April 2009, owed over $11,000 in rent arrears; and petitioner's admission that she had not paid rent in nearly two years. Respondent's determination that petitioner had harassed her co-tenant was likewise supported by substantial evidence, including the co-tenant's testimony to that effect, which the hearing officer expressly credited.
The penalty imposed was not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness ( see Matter of Morman v. New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 81 A.D.3d 528, 916 N.Y.S.2d 507 [2011] ).
We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Taylor, 108253
...320 ; People v. Diaz, 149 A.D.3d at 975, 53 N.Y.S.3d 94 ; People v. Duffy, 119 A.D.3d at 1234, 990 N.Y.S.2d 346 ; People v. Gordon, 92 A.D.3d at 581, 938 N.Y.S.2d 554 ; People v. Stokes, 25 A.D.3d 332, 333, 808 N.Y.S.2d 635 [2006], lv denied 6 N.Y.3d 839, 814 N.Y.S.2d 87, 847 N.E.2d 384 [20......
- Cont'l Guest Servs. Corp. v. Int'l Bus Servs., Inc.
-
People v. Gordon
...) and the [938 N.Y.S.2d 556] weight ( People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ) of the evidence, [92 A.D.3d 581] we generally have no occasion to consider a defense raised for the first time on appeal ( see e.g. People v. Williams, 15 A.D.3d 244, 246, 7......
-
Moore v. Rhea
...at 405, 967 N.Y.S.2d 26). The penalty imposed does not shock our sense of fairness ( see Matter of Devins v. New York City Hous. Auth., 92 A.D.3d 581, 582, 939 N.Y.S.2d 36 [1st Dept.2012] ). We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions, including that she was deprived of procedural......