New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts Appellate Division, First Department
April 2, 2013
IN RE MARIE PERRETTE, PETITIONER,
NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT,
Matter of Perrette v New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev.
Decided on April 2, 2013
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.
Tom, J.P., Andrias, Acosta, Moskowitz, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
Determination of respondent New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), dated February 24, 2010, which, after a hearing, terminated petitioner's section 8 rent subsidy, 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 S. Kern, J.], entered October 20, 2010), dismissed, without costs.
The Hearing Officer's finding that petitioner intentionally failed to report approximately $30,000 of income earned by her daughter during a three-year period is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Purdy v Kreisberg, 47 NY2d 354, 358 ). He also found that while petitioner would not be able to afford the apartment without assistance, she will not be rendered homeless as a result of the termination of the subsidy, and that there are no mitigating circumstances sufficient to warrant reversal of HPD's termination of the benefits. Here, as in Matter of Perez v Rhea (__ NY3d __, 2013 NY Slip Op 00953 ), "termination of plaintiff's tenancy was not so disproportionate to the offense, in the light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness.'" As noted by the Court in Perez, "[a] vital public interest underlies the need to enforce income rules pertaining to public housing. . . . The deterrent value of eviction [ ] is clearly significant and supports the purposes of the limited supply of publicly-supported housing." Notwithstanding the hardship to petitioner, the penalty of termination is confirmed (see Matter of Cubilete v Morales, 92 AD3d 470 [1st Dept 2012]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: APRIL 2, 2013
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.