Matter of Johnson v New York City Hous. Auth.

Annotate this Case
Matter of Johnson v New York City Hous. Auth. 2013 NY Slip Op 07666 Decided on November 19, 2013 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on November 19, 2013
Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Gische, JJ. 11091 &
113729/11 -5550

[*1]In re Shakeema Johnson, Petitioner,

v

New York City Housing Authority, Respondent.




Shakeema Johnson, petitioner pro se.
Kelly D. MacNeal, New York (Laura R. Bellrose of counsel),
for respondent.

Determination of respondent, dated August 10, 2011, which terminated petitioner's public housing tenancy on 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 [Cynthia Kern, J.], entered May 11, 2012), dismissed, without costs.

The determination is supported by substantial evidence (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176 [1978]). The evidence showed that during the execution of a search warrant of petitioner's apartment, police recovered, inter alia, marijuana and guns. There exists no basis to disturb the credibility determination of the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444 [1987]).

The penalty imposed does not shock our sense of fairness (see Latoni v New York City Hous. Auth., 95 AD3d 611 [1st Dept 2012]; Matter of Diaz v Hernandez, 66 AD3d 525 [1st Dept 2009]). M-5550 -In re Johnson v New York City Housing AuthorityMotion seeking stay denied as moot.

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

ENTERED: NOVEMBER 19, 2013 [*2]

CLERK

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.