Summary
In Matter of Williams v. White Plains Housing Auth. (35 A.D.2d 965) we considered the nature of the hearing to be afforded a public housing tenant whose eviction is sought.
Summary of this case from Spady v. Mount Vernon Housing AuthorityOpinion
December 14, 1970
In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to prohibit appellant Authority from evicting petitioner until after she is afforded a full and fair hearing, the appeal (by permission) is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered June 18, 1970, which (1) stayed a summary proceeding brought by the Authority against petitioner in the City Court of the City of White Plains and (2) remanded this article 78 proceeding to the Authority for further determination and action after a hearing which will guarantee certain procedural safeguards to petitioner. Judgment affirmed, without costs. We agree with Special Term's finding that the hearing which the Authority is mandated to furnish tenants ( 9 NYCRR 1627-7.3) prior to their eviction from a housing authority project must comply with minimal standards of due process (cf. Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254; Matter of Vinson v. Greenburgh Housing Auth., 29 A.D.2d 338; Public Landlords and Private Tenants: The Eviction of "Undesirables" From Public Housing Projects, 77 Yale L.J. 988, 993, 1004-1005). Among these standards are adequate notice both of the acts which form the basis of the tenant's alleged undesirability and the consequences of an adverse determination, together with the right to be represented by counsel, to confront witnesses and to challenge the evidence upon which the Authority relies in making its determination (cf. Matter of Hecht v. Monaghan, 307 N.Y. 461, 470). In order to conform to our mandate to construe enactments so as to preserve their constitutionality, we hold that these minimal due process standards must be read into the regulation (cf. Matter of Buttonow, 23 N.Y.2d 385, 393; People v. Bailey, 21 N.Y.2d 588, 596). We note that some of the difficulties which arose in this case would have been averted had the procedure outlined in the regulation been followed, by having an administrative finding of ineligibility for continued tenancy made prior to consideration of the matter by the Authority Review Board. Rabin, Acting P.J., Hopkins, Latham, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur. [ 62 Misc.2d 613.]