Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Lia CARSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Respondent-Respondent.
Determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority, after a hearing, dismissing petitioner from her position as a caretaker upon a finding that she improperly used and/or possessed marijuana while at work, in violation of respondent's Personnel Rules and Regulations, Chapter I, Rule XII, Section B(1)(b), 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 [Lewis Bart Stone, J.], entered May 9, 2005) dismissed, without costs.
The finding of marijuana use and/or possession is supported by substantial evidence, namely, the testimony of the arresting officer that he smelled marijuana in the stairwell just before seeing petitioner, saw a marijuana cigarette being passed to petitioner, saw petitioner throw the marijuana cigarette to the ground and cover it with her foot, immediately recovered the marijuana cigarette from the floor when petitioner moved her foot, and that a bag of marijuana was recovered from petitioner's person. No basis exists to disturb the hearing officer's findings of credibility (see Matter of Berenhaus v. Ward, 70 N.Y.2d 436, 443-444, 522 N.Y.S.2d 478, 517 N.E.2d 193 [1987] ). Although the officer was unable to identify petitioner at the hearing, petitioner never denied that she was the woman arrested by the officer. The penalty of dismissal does not shock our sense of fairness (see Matter of Kelly v. Safir, 96 N.Y.2d 32, 38, 724 N.Y.S.2d 680, 747 N.E.2d 1280 [2001] ). We have reviewed petitioner's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: January 19, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)