From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Appln. of Lohmann v. Members Bd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 19, 2002
291 A.D.2d 288 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

264

February 19, 2002.

Determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority, dated February 2, 2000, which terminated petitioner's public housing tenancy on grounds of non-desirability upon a finding that petitioner allowed excessive noise to emanate from the subject apartment, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Walter Tolub, J.], entered December 22, 2000), dismissed, without costs.

JACQUELINE M.H. BUKOWSKI, for petitioner.

ELYSE HILTON, for respondents.

Before: Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Lerner, Buckley, JJ.


Substantial evidence (see, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 180), comprised of the duly credited testimony of four long-term tenants from apartments neighboring that of petitioner, supported the determination that petitioner's continued tenancy in the project was non-desirable. The testimony of petitioner's neighbors established that excessive and disturbing noise from petitioner's apartment had persisted over a six to seven-year period and, although a quiet period of approximately eleven months intervened during a portion of the extended administrative hearing, the loud noises thereafter resumed and continued regularly, substantially disrupting the lives of the neighboring tenants. Petitioner's testimony, that the noise came from other neighboring apartments, was rejected by the Hearing Officer, and there exists no basis to disturb this credibility finding or the Hearing Officer's other assessments of witness credibility (see,Matter of Berenhaus v. Ward, 70 N.Y.2d 436, 443).

Under the circumstances presented herein, termination of petitioner's tenancy was not an abuse of discretion as a matter of law (i.e., shocking to one's sense of fairness)(see, Matter of Featherstone v. Franco, 95 N.Y.2d 550, 554).

We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

In re Appln. of Lohmann v. Members Bd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 19, 2002
291 A.D.2d 288 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

In re Appln. of Lohmann v. Members Bd.

Case Details

Full title:IN RE APPLICATION OF RICHARD LOHMANN, PETITIONER, FOR A JUDGMENT, ETC., v…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Feb 19, 2002

Citations

291 A.D.2d 288 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
738 N.Y.S.2d 43

Citing Cases

In re Diaz

The testimony of the building manager, as well as documentary evidence from a company that matches boarders…

In re Alejandro v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth.

In other words, "where from the evidence either of two conflicting inferences may drawn, the duty of weighing…