Matter of March v Rhea

Matter of March v Rhea 2011 NY Slip Op 01714 Decided on March 8, 2011 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 March 8, 2011
Andrias, J.P., Catterson, Moskowitz, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
4474 402740/09

[*1]In re Mary March, Petitioner,

v

John B. Rhea, as Commissioner of the New York City Housing Authority, Respondent.




Joan L. Beranbaum, DC 37 Municipal Employees Legal
Services, New York (Stephen Shepard of counsel), for appellant.
Sonya M. Kaloyanides, New York (Andrew M. Lupin of
counsel), for respondent.

Determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority, dated July 1, 2009, which terminated petitioner's tenancy in public housing on the grounds of undesirability and breach of rules and regulations, 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 [Marcy S. Friedman, J.], entered May 4, 2010), dismissed, without costs.

There is substantial evidence in the record to support respondent's determination that petitioner refused, without legitimate reason, to relocate to another Housing Authority apartment when requested to do so to allow for a major renovation of the building in which she was living (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176 [1978]). The hearing officer fairly concluded that petitioner failed to present objective evidence to support her "safety concerns" with regard to several of the apartments offered to her and that her belief that several of the apartments were too small was not a permissible justification for rejecting them.

Under the circumstances, the penalty of terminating petitioner's tenancy does not "shock[] the judicial conscience" (see Matter of Featherstone v Franco, 95 NY2d 550, 554 [2000]).

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: MARCH 8, 2011

CLERK