Matter of Devins v New York City Hous. Auth.

Matter of Matter of Devins v New York City Hous. Auth. 2012 NY Slip Op 01355 Decided on February 23, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on February 23, 2012
Mazzarelli, J.P., Catterson, Renwick, Abdus-Salaam, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
6881 402427/09

[*1]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.

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 NY2d 354, 358 [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 AD3d 314, 314 [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 [*2]AD3d 528 [2011]).

We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: FEBRUARY 23, 2012

CLERK