Opinion
8986 Index 101456/16
04-11-2019
In re Monique MCLAUGHLIN, Petitioner, v. The NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Brownsville Houses, Respondent.
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York (Anne Simons of counsel), for appellant. Kelly D. MacNeal, New York (Laura R. Bellrose of counsel), for respondent.
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York (Anne Simons of counsel), for appellant.
Kelly D. MacNeal, New York (Laura R. Bellrose of counsel), for respondent.
Acosta, P.J., Manzanet–Daniels, Tom, Oing, JJ.
Determination of respondent, dated June 13, 2016, which terminated petitioner's tenancy on the grounds of nondesirability and breach of respondent's rules and regulations, 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 [Arlene P. Bluth, J.], entered November 20, 2017), dismissed, without costs.
The transfer of the proceeding to this Court was proper insofar as petitioner raised an issue of substantial evidence by challenging certain factual findings made by the Hearing Officer (see CPLR 7804[g] ).
Respondent's determination is supported by substantial evidence. The evidence showed that illegal drugs were recovered from petitioner's apartment upon execution of a search warrant, which was issued after a confidential informant made controlled buys, targeting her (see Matter of Coleman v. Rhea, 104 A.D.3d 535, 961 N.Y.S.2d 403 [1st Dept. 2013], lv denied 21 N.Y.3d 857, 2013 WL 2476398 [2013] ).
Under the circumstances presented, the penalty of termination does not shock our sense of fairness (see e.g. Matter of Prado v. New York City Hous. Auth., 116 A.D.3d 593, 983 N.Y.S.2d 789 [1st Dept. 2014] ; Matter of Rodriguez v. New York City Hous. Auth., 84 A.D.3d 630, 923 N.Y.S.2d 502 [1st Dept. 2011] ).
We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments, including that respondent violated her due process rights, and find them unavailing.