Decided on April 25, 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., Acosta, Feinman, Clark, JJ.
Determination of respondent, dated November 22, 2011, terminating petitioner's participation in the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program, 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 [Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.], entered July 20, 2012) dismissed, without costs.
The determination was supported by substantial evidence (300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180 ). Indeed, joint federal income tax returns filed by petitioner and her husband demonstrate that she intentionally misrepresented the household's income during annual Section 8 recertifications in 2008, 2009, and 2010, resulting in a significant subsidy overpayment.
Given the Court of Appeals' decision in Perez v Rhea (__ NY3d __, 2013 NY Slip Op 00953 ), the penalty imposed does not shock our sense of fairness.
We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw ...