Opinion
2013-01-24
In re Sanayi BECKLES, Petitioner, v. Rafael E. CESTERO, etc., Respondent.
Sanayi Beckles, petitioner pro se. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Graham Morrison of counsel), for respondent.
Sanayi Beckles, petitioner pro se. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Graham Morrison of counsel), for respondent.
MAZZARELLI, J.P., SWEENY, RENWICK, RICHTER, JJ.
Determination of respondent New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), dated February 28, 2011, terminating petitioner's Section 8 rent subsidy on the ground that she fraudulently misrepresented her household income, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Tanya R. Kennedy, J.], entered July 27, 2011) dismissed, without costs.
The determination was supported by substantial evidence showing that petitioner intentionally failed to disclose over $93,000 in income over the course of four years ( see Matter of Purdy v. Kreisberg, 47 N.Y.2d 354, 358, 418 N.Y.S.2d 329, 391 N.E.2d 1307 [1979] ). Indeed, petitioner admits that she “significantly underreported her income for several years.” Petitioner's assertions that she did not intentionally underreport her income, that she disclosed her income by submitting paystubs and by informing HPD caseworkers of the undisclosed employment, and that HPD employees assured her that she did not need to disclose a second, legally obtained social security number, were considered and rejected by the hearing officer and there exists no basis to disturb these credibility determinations ( see Matter of Berenhaus v. Ward, 70 N.Y.2d 436, 443–444, 522 N.Y.S.2d 478, 517 N.E.2d 193 [1987];Matter of Porter v. New York City Hous. Auth., 42 A.D.3d 314, 837 N.Y.S.2d 875 [1st Dept. 2007] ).
The penalty imposed does not shock our sense of fairness ( see Matter of Bland v. New York City Hous. Auth., 72 A.D.3d 528, 901 N.Y.S.2d 158 [1st Dept. 2010];Matter of Smith v. New York City Hous. Auth., 40 A.D.3d 235, 835 N.Y.S.2d 131 [1st Dept. 2007], lv. denied9 N.Y.3d 816, 849 N.Y.S.2d 32, 879 N.E.2d 172 [2007] ).
We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.