From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gray v. N.Y. State Div. of Hous. & Cmty. Renewal

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Dec 16, 2020
189 A.D.3d 1234 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

Opinion

2018-11091 Index No. 773/18

12-16-2020

In the Matter of John GRAY, et al., petitioners, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL, et al., respondents.

Stern & Stern, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Pamela Smith of counsel), for petitioners. Mark F. Palomino, New York, N.Y. (Anita Shia of counsel), for respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal.


Stern & Stern, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Pamela Smith of counsel), for petitioners.

Mark F. Palomino, New York, N.Y. (Anita Shia of counsel), for respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.

DECISION & JUDGMENT Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal dated February 6, 2018. The determination adopted the recommendation of an administrative law judge, made after a hearing, finding that the petitioners engaged in a course of conduct constituting harassment and assessed civil penalties in the total sum of $55,000 against the petitioners.

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs payable to the respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal.

The administrative law judge providently exercised her discretion in declining to grant the petitioners a further adjournment of the hearing so that they could hire an attorney (see Matter of Estafanous v. New York City Envtl. Control Bd. , 136 A.D.3d 906, 26 N.Y.S.3d 126 ).

Contrary to the petitioners' contention, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the determination and findings made by the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176,180, 408 N.Y.S.2d 54, 379 N.E.2d 1183 ).

We also find that the penalty imposed was not excessive or shocking to one's sense of fairness (see Matter of Kelly v. Safir, 96 N.Y.2d 32, 38, 724 N.Y.S.2d 680, 747 N.E.2d 1280 ; Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ. , 34 N.Y.2d 222, 230, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321 ).

MASTRO, J.P., ROMAN, HINDS–RADIX and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Gray v. N.Y. State Div. of Hous. & Cmty. Renewal

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Dec 16, 2020
189 A.D.3d 1234 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)
Case details for

Gray v. N.Y. State Div. of Hous. & Cmty. Renewal

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of John Gray, et al., petitioners, v. New York State…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Date published: Dec 16, 2020

Citations

189 A.D.3d 1234 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)
134 N.Y.S.3d 251
2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 7570