Opinion
2014-04-22
In re Leonide PRADO, Petitioner, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Respondent.
Leonide Prado, petitioner pro se. Kelly D. MacNeal, New York (Megan E. Kimball of counsel), for respondent.
Leonide Prado, petitioner pro se.Kelly D. MacNeal, New York (Megan E. Kimball of counsel), for respondent.
Determination of respondent, dated May 2, 2012, 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 [Michael D. Stallman, J.], entered October 16, 2012), dismissed, without costs.
Respondent's determination is supported by substantial evidence. The arresting officer testified that, upon execution of a search warrant, which was obtained after several controlled purchases of crack cocaine had been made from the subject apartment, police recovered crack cocaine, drug packaging equipment, and approximately $2,000 in small bills from the apartment ( see Matter of Zimmerman v. New York City Hous. Auth., 84 A.D.3d 526, 921 N.Y.S.2d 856 [1st Dept.2011] ). The officer also stated that he observed petitioner exchanging small objects for money from the kitchen window of her first-floor apartment, and there is no basis to disturb the Hearing Officer's finding that petitioner's testimony denying such activity was not credible ( see Matter of Santana v. New York City Hous. Auth., 106 A.D.3d 449, 965 N.Y.S.2d 55 [1st Dept.2013] ). Similarly, the Hearing Officer's decision to reject petitioner's testimony that it was the other person who was present when the search was conducted who was solely responsible, is entitled to deference ( see id.; Matter of Satterwhite v. Hernandez, 16 A.D.3d 131, 790 N.Y.S.2d 124 [1st Dept.2005] ). The subsequent dismissal of the criminal charges against petitioner does not warrant a different determination ( see Matter of Whitted v. New York City Hous. Auth., 110 A.D.3d 447, 448, 973 N.Y.S.2d 37 [1st Dept.2013] ).
Under the circumstances presented, the penalty of termination does not shock our sense of fairness ( see Matter of Santana, 106 A.D.3d at 449, 965 N.Y.S.2d 55 ; Matter of Zimmerman, 84 A.D.3d at 526, 921 N.Y.S.2d 856). MAZZARELLI, J.P., FRIEDMAN, DeGRASSE, FREEDMAN, KAPNICK, JJ., concur.