Opinion
2012-05-15
In re Denisia FREY, Petitioner–Appellant, v. The NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT, et al., Respondents–Respondents.
Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Young Woo Lee of counsel), for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Kathy H. Chang of counsel), for respondents.
Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Young Woo Lee of counsel), for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Kathy H. Chang of counsel), for respondents.
TOM, J.P., ANDRIAS, RENWICK, DeGRASSE, ABDUS–SALAAM, JJ.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered May 18, 2011, which denied the petition to annul respondent New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development's (HPD) determination, dated June 15, 2010, terminating petitioner's Section 8 rent subsidy on the ground that she had misrepresented her household income on recertification applications, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The termination of petitioner's Section 8 rent subsidy was not “so disproportionate to the offense, in the light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness” ( see Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 N.Y.2d 222, 233, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321 [1974] [internal quotation marks omitted]; Matter of Alarape v. New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 55 A.D.3d 316, 863 N.Y.S.2d 916 [2008],lv. denied12 N.Y.3d 801, 879 N.Y.S.2d 44, 906 N.E.2d 1078 [2009] ).
Petitioner failed to preserve her argument that the termination of her Section 8 rent subsidy was contrary to HPD's administrative plan, as she never asserted this claim at the agency level ( see Matter of Melendez v. Cestero, 79 A.D.3d 603, 603, 912 N.Y.S.2d 222 [2010] ). As an alternative holding, we conclude that HPD's determination was in accordance with the administrative plan, since the documents petitioner submitted in connection with the pretermination conference confirmed that she did not comply with the requirement to report all household income ( id. at 603–604, 912 N.Y.S.2d 222).