New York Civil Service Attorney Law Blog : New York Civil Service Lawyer & Attorney : Kevin P. Sheerin : Article 78 : Serving New York City, Long Island, Manhattan, Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island

The Matter of the Application of Judy Florence against The New York City Housing Authority

In this Article 78 case, petitioner sought to reverse respondent’s decision to terminate her lease due to failure to register and maintain her two dogs in compliance with the Housing Authority pet policy and her outstanding rent balance.

According to the respondent, their decision to terminate her tenancy was based on substantial evidence. First, petitioner admitted that she owned a pit bull that was involved in an attack with her neighbor in the hallway near the petitioner’s apartment and she did not register both of her pets. Second, petitioner also admitted that she failed to pay her rent on time and this was a violation of the housing Authority Policy. According to the Housing authority, failure to make payments on time is a good enough reason to terminate tenancy.

The petition was denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs and disbursements to the respondent.

Read more about this Article 78 case here.

To read about more Article 78 cases go to http://www.sheerinlaw.com/?id=78.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Howard Norton v. Town of Islip

In this Article 78 case, the plaintiff Howard Norton purchased a house in 1986 that had been converted into a two-family dwelling which the Town of Islip certified as a “legal nonconforming two-family dwelling”. When the plaintiff decided to rent out the house two years later, he was denied a rental permit because the Town claimed the house had lost its “legal nonconforming” status after being left vacant for a year. Plaintiff then commenced an Article 78 proceeding in Supreme Court to challenge the permit denial. The Supreme Court denied the petition but refused to determine whether the house was a legal nonconforming two-family dwelling or not.

After the conclusion of the Article 78 hearing, the Commissioner of the Town’s Department of Building and Engineering made notations of the house’s certificate of occupancy describing the denial of the rental permit and concluding that the house’s “non-conforming use” had been “lost due to non-use in excess of one consecutive year”. Plaintiff was not informed of these notations nor was he given an opportunity to challenge them.

In 1997, the Town commenced a criminal action against the plaintiff for using the house as a two-family dwelling. The Town charged him with violating the Town Code based on the notations made by the Commissioner on the certificate of occupancy. The plaintiff then brought about an action against the District Court claiming his Due Process rights had been violated. Plaintiff claimed that the Town’s attorneys committed malicious prosecution and abuse of process in connection with the criminal proceeding against him. The individual defendants then moved for summary judgment in District Court alleging they were entitled to absolute or qualified immunity. The Court granted the individual defendants the qualified immunity with respect to plaintiff’s federal-law claims since they believed that the house’s nonconforming use had been lost based on the notations on the certificate of occupancy and had probable cause to prosecute the plaintiff for a Town Code violation. Since the District Court did not discuss whether the individual defendants were entitled to immunity with respect to the plaintiff’s state-law claims, the Court must remand this issue to the District Court to address the confusion.

Accordingly, the Court reversed the District Court’s order and remanded the cause for further proceedings with this order.

Read more about this Article 78 housing case here.

To read about more Article 78 cases go to http://www.sheerinlaw.com/?id=78.

For other interesting information in the personal injury file go to www.negligenceatty.com.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Matter of Flores-Tully v City of New York Department of Housing Preservation and Development

Petitioner brought about this Article 78 appeal to review a determination of the City of New York Department of Housing Preservation and Development denying petitioner’s application for succession rights to an apartment owned by Dayton Tower’s Corporation. The Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding which resulted in this appeal.

Petitioner claims that the decision was arbitrary and capricious and lacked a rational basis. The Court disagrees because petitioner was never named on the income affidavits filed for the apartment prior to the tenant of record’s death. Though the tenant was petitioner’s husband, Dayton was never notified of her occupancy. Additionally, she filed income affidavits that showed she occupied another apartment unit in the same building.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the determination, with one bill of costs.

Read more about this Article 78 housing case here.

To read about more Article 78 cases go to http://www.sheerinlaw.com/?id=78.

For other interesting information in the personal injury file go to www.negligenceatty.com.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Matter of Yasmeen Lugo v The New York City Housing Authority

Petitioner, Yasmeen Lugo, was the sole authorized tenant for her apartment in a New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) public housing development. According to NYCHA, Petitioner allowed illegal drug transactions to occur in her apartment and was chronically delinquent on her rent payments. These issues caused NYCHA to charge Petitioner with non-desirability, breach of rules and regulations, endangering the welfare of a child, and chronic rent delinquency. After a hearing, NYCHA recommended terminating Petitioner’s tenancy. Petitioner argued that she had no knowledge of any illegal drug dealing activities by her two friends that often stayed in her apartment. The Board adopted the hearing officer’s decision and terminated Petitioner’s tenancy. Petitioner then commenced this Article 78 appeal.

CPLR 7803 states that the court review of a determination of an agency should only be regarding whether or not the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure or was arbitrary and capricious. In this case the decision for termination of tenancy was based on substantial evidence and the Court found no reason in the record to annul the NYCHA’s decision. The Petitioner’s assertion that she was unaware of any illegal drug transactions in her apartment is not sufficient to overcome the other evidence presented at the hearing.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court denied the petition.

Read more about this Article 78 Housing Authority appeal.

To read about more Article 78 cases go to http://www.sheerinlaw.com/?id=78.

For other interesting information in the personal injury file go to www.negligenceatty.com.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Matter of Anne Baldwin v Tino Hernandez, as Chairman and Member of the NYC Housing Authority

Petitioner brought about this Article 78 proceeding to review a determination from the New York City Housing Authority that permanently excluded her son from her public housing apartment.

The reasons behind the Housing Authority’s condition that petitioner may continue tenancy on exclusion of her son for non-desirability were supported by substantial evidence, and not arbitrary and capricious. Petitioner’s son pleaded guilty to assault, threatening two Housing Authority employees, and harassing a former supervisor. These instances all supported the Housing Authority’s decision showing that the exclusion was appropriate and not shocking to the conscience.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court confirmed the determination, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding.

Read more about this Article 78 NYC housing authority appeal.

To read about more Article 78 cases go to http://www.sheerinlaw.com/?id=78.

For other interesting information in the personal injury file go to www.negligenceatty.com.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Matter of Vazquez v New York City Housing Authority

Petitioner, Anita Vazquez, commenced this Article 78 appeal against the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) to review the determination terminating her public housing tenancy on the ground of nondesirability. Petitioner was charged with chronic rent delinquency and later non-desirability based on charges of unauthorized use of an ATM card. The decision to termination petitioner’s tenancy was in response to her guilty plea to this felony offense.

The penalty imposed on petitioner was disproportionate to the offense considering that petitioner is current in all rent due, has a source of income from SSI and public assistance, and has paid full restitution to the complaining witness and complied with the conditions of her probation. Additionally, petitioner has no prior criminal record and her criminal conduct was an isolated occurrence. Terminating petitioner’s tenancy considering her specific circumstances is shocking to the judicial conscience and sense of fairness.

Accordingly, the Court vacated the penalty of termination and remanded respondent for imposition of a lesser penalty.

Read article here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link