Matter of Adams v New York City Hous. Auth.
Annotate this CaseDecided on November 2, 2006
Supreme Court, Kings County
In the Matter of the Application of Sharon Adams, Petitioner,
against
New York City Housing Authority, Respondent.
35009/05
Francois A. Rivera, J.
By verified petition filed on November 15, 2005, Sharon Adams, pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR, seeks to reverse the New York City Housing Authority's (hereinafter NYCHA) administrative determination to terminate her tenancy. Respondent opposes the petition.
On November 15, 2005, petitioner commenced the instant action by filing the Notice of Petition with the King's County Clerk's office. On January 13, 2006, respondent served petitioner with a verified answer in opposition.
This is an action brought by petitioner seeking to reverse the NYCHA's determination to evict petitioner and recover possession of her apartment located a t 131 Cumberland Walk, Apt. 5C, Brooklyn, New York.
The following facts are not in dispute. Petitioner was the tenant of record at 131 Cumberland Walk, Apt. 5C, Brooklyn, New York. 131 Cumberland Walk is a residential building in the NYCHA's Whitman Houses development. Petitioner signed the lease in 1997 and that the family composition consisted of petitioner, her sister, Rondelle Adams, and her brother Samuel Adams. On May 10, 2005 and June 7, 2005, an administrative hearing was conducted to determine whether petitioner improperly sublet her apartment to Jamel Lee. William Green, former manager of the Whitman Houses development, Isabella Lee, a tenant at the Whitman Houses development, and Jamel Lee, testified at the administrative hearing. After the administrative hearing, the Housing Authority terminated petitioner's tenancy finding that she illegally sublet her apartment.
The petition includes an attached memorandum; several documents pertaining to Jamel Lee; transcripts of a Civil Court Housing Part proceeding of July 26, 2004; an unsigned, affirmation dated June 30, 2005 for Ariel Velez; the decision of hearing officer, Joan Pannell; and two letters from NYCHA dated April 22 and May 12, 2005, respectively, advising petitioner of amended and/or supplemental charges and adjournment dates.
Respondents verified answer alleges four affirmative defenses. The first contends that the petition should be transferred to the Appellate Division, Second Department pursuant to CPLR §7804 (g). The second contends that the hearing officer's decision and disposition and NYCHA's determination are supported by substantial evidence. The third contends that the [*2]Housing Authority's determination is legally correct. The fourth contends that petitioner fails to state a cause of action. The answer also attached six exhibits, namely, NYCHA termination of tenancy procedures; Sharon Adams' NYCHA resident lease agreement; NYCHA's interview record; the aforementioned NYCHA letters of April 22 and May 12, 2005, and the aforementioned hearing officer's decision, and the Determination of Status for Continued Occupancy, dated August 3, 2005. Respondent also submitted a transcript of the administrative hearing and a memorandum of law.
On July 21, 2004, the manager of Whitman Houses, Willam Green, met with petitioner to advise her that the Housing Authority would be initiating administrative action against her for subleasing her apartment to Jamel Lee. Petitioner claimed that Jamel Lee was her boyfriend and that although he sometimes stayed in the apartment, he did not live there. On or about December 23, 2004, the Housing Authority served petitioner with a Notice of Specification of Charges alleging she improperly assigned or transferred possession of her apartment, and breached rules and regulations by , among other things, violating her lease by failing to occupy the apartment and allowing unauthorized occupants to take up residence therein. In a letter dated April 22, 2005, the Housing Authority amended the charges to allege, among other things, that petitioner filed false instruments with the Housing Authority, misstated a material fact bearing upon eligibility for continued occupancy, and failed to furnish complete income verification information. In a May 12, 2005 letter, the Housing Authority again amended the charges to allege that petitioner had filed false instruments since June 2003 and had improperly sublet the apartment since May 2001.
On May 10, 2005, the administrative hearing commenced and continued on June 7, 2005. Petitioner was represented by an attorney and denied the charges. Jamel Lee, William Green, Isabella Lee (Jamel Lee's mother) testified for the Housing Authority. Lasurma Pippins, Rondell Adams, and the petitioner, Sharon Adams testified for the petitioner. After hearing the testimony and reviewing the evidence, the hearing officer upheld the charges indicating that the witnesses for the Housing Authority were wholly credible.
On August 3, 2005, the Members of the Housing Authority Board adopted the hearing officer's decision, issuing a Determination of Status terminating petitioner's tenancy.
Jamel Lee commenced a Housing Court action for an illegal lockout after petitioner changed the locks. Both Mr. Lee and Ms. Adams testified. The Housing Court found Mr. Lee to be credible and Ms. Adams' testimony not credible. On July 26, 2004, the Housing Court determined that Sharon Adams illegally sublet her apartment to Jamel Lee and that Jamel Lee awarded possession of the apartment back to Mr. Lee. The finding by the Housing Court was part of the record in the Administrative Hearing.
Petitioner now brings this Article 78 petition challenging the determination of the Housing Board claiming that the Jamel Lee's testimony at the hearing lacked credibility.
Article 78 proceedings are often used to challenge action or inaction by agencies and officers of state and local government. When a court reviews an agency's decision based on a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding, the Article 78 petition is considered a writ of certiorari. The standard of review for a writ of certiorari is whether the determination was supported by substantial evidence (McKinney's Practice Commentaries to CPLR §7801 by David Siegel).
Pursuant to CPLR §7804(g), when the issue of substantial evidence is raised, the Supreme Court must apply a two-step analysis that may result in a transfer fo the case to the [*3]Appellate Division. First, the Supreme Court must decide objections that could terminate the proceedings such as lack of jurisdiction, statute of limitations, and res judicata. Second, if such an objection is not raised, or the court's resolution of the objection fails to terminate the proceeding, the Supreme Court must transfer the entire case to the Appellate Division.
In this matter, there was no objection made for the court to decide that would terminate the proceedings. The petition raises the sole question of whether a determination made as a result of a hearing held, and at which evidence was taken on the record, was supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, this matter is transferred to the Appellate Division, Second Department (see Natividad v Glen Cove Housing Authority, 308 AD2d 542 [2nd Dept.2003]).
_________________________
J.S.C.
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.
