From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

 Devins v. New York City Hous. Auth.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Feb 23, 2012
92 A.D.3d 581 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-02-23

In re Stephanie G. DEVINS, Petitioner–Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Respondent–Respondent.

Stephanie G. Devins, appellant pro se. Sonya M. Kaloyanides, New York (Andrew M. Lupin of counsel), for respondent.


Stephanie G. Devins, appellant pro se. Sonya M. Kaloyanides, New York (Andrew M. Lupin of counsel), for respondent.

MAZZARELLI, J.P., CATTERSON, RENWICK, ABDUS–SALAAM, MANZANET–DANIELS, JJ.

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.


Summaries of

 Devins v. New York City Hous. Auth.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Feb 23, 2012
92 A.D.3d 581 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

 Devins v. New York City Hous. Auth.

Case Details

Full title:In re Stephanie G. DEVINS, Petitioner–Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Feb 23, 2012

Citations

92 A.D.3d 581 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
939 N.Y.S.2d 36
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 1355

Citing Cases

Rivera v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth.

Accordingly, we will “treat the substantial evidence issues de novo and decide all issues as if the…

Moore v. Rhea

In any event, even under the standards governing judicial reconsideration, reargument was not warranted,…