Matter of March v New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev.

Matter of Matter of March v New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. 2012 NY Slip Op 02773 Decided on April 12, 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 April 12, 2012
Saxe, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Renwick, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
7361 109981/10

[*1]In re Rosamond March, Petitioner,

v

New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, et al., Respondents.




Sokolski & Zekaria, P.C., New York (Robert E. Sokolski of
counsel), for petitioner.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Scott
Shorr of counsel), for New York City Department of Housing
Preservation and Development, respondent.
Barry Mallin & Associates, P.C., New York (Michael
Schwartz of counsel), for Mutual Redevelopment Houses, Inc.,
respondent.

Determination of respondent New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, dated April 6, 2010, which issued a certificate of eviction as to petitioner, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Jane S. Solomon, J.], entered January 11, 2010), dismissed, without costs.

The determination to issue a certificate of eviction is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Verdell v Lincoln Amsterdam House, Inc., 27 AD3d 388, 390 [2006]). The hearing testimony shows that petitioner breached the stipulation in which she agreed to keep her apartment clean and free of unsanitary conditions and odor. Further, in view of the condition of the apartment, we do not find the penalty of eviction shocking to the conscience.

Petitioner did not raise at the hearing her argument that she was entitled to an accommodation. Indeed, in the stipulation, she explicitly withdrew her request for a reasonable [*2]accommodation (see Matter of Seril v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 205 AD2d 347 [1994]).

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

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

ENTERED: APRIL 12, 2012

CLERK