Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In Re Sheena Rowe v. John B. Rhea

New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts Appellate Division, First Department


December 4, 2012

IN RE SHEENA ROWE,
PETITIONER,
v.
JOHN B. RHEA, ETC., ET AL.,
RESPONDENTS.

Matter of Matter of Rowe v Rhea

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 December 4, 2012

Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, Renwick, Freedman, JJ.

Determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), dated May 19, 2010, which terminated petitioner's public housing tenancy on grounds of nondesirability, 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 [Barbara Jaffe, J.], entered November 18, 2011), dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence supports the conclusion that petitioner continued to be a member of a drug conspiracy until her arrest in mid-May 2009, which was during her first two weeks as a public housing tenant (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180-181 [1978]). Although the federal indictment to which she pled guilty defined the drug conspiracy as ending some time in April 2009, the record supported a reasonable inference that petitioner did not withdraw from the conspiracy prior to her arrest.

Petitioner's claim that NYCHA failed to adhere to its pre-termination procedures is unpreserved because it was not raised before the agency (see Matter of Hughes v Suffolk County Dept. of Civ. Serv., 74 NY2d 833, 834 [1989]), and, in any event, is not supported by the record.

The termination of petitioner's tenancy does not shock our sense of fairness (see e.g. Latoni v New York City Hous. Auth., 95 AD3d 611 [1st Dept 2012]).

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

ENTERED: DECEMBER 4, 2012

CLERK

20121204

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.