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: Application of Larry POWELL, et al., Petitioners, v. Ruben FRANCO, etc., et al., Respondents.
Determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority, dated November 6, 1996, which required the permanent exclusion of petitioners' son, Kenneth, as a condition of their continued occupancy in public housing, unanimously modified, on the facts, to vacate the penalty and remand the matter for imposition of a lesser penalty, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [William Leibovitz, J.], entered October 31, 1997), is otherwise disposed of by confirming the remainder of the determination, without costs.
Respondents' determination regarding charges numbered one through three is supported by substantial evidence (300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 180, 408 N.Y.S.2d 54, 379 N.E.2d 1183). Petitioners did not contest that their son had been arrested on project grounds, after being observed in hand-to-hand exchanges with various individuals and found in possession of what the arresting officer believed was crack. However, the record demonstrates that petitioners have a long and commendable record as Housing Authority tenants and that the subject incident, involving their son, Kenneth, was an isolated and apparently aberrant episode in an otherwise stable and law-abiding family. Moreover, Kenneth, as a consequence of his arrest on project grounds, ultimately pleaded guilty not to drug possession or sale, but to disorderly conduct, and successfully completed a sentence for that offense of five days of community service. Under these circumstances, we find the penalty of petitioners' conditional exclusion from public housing shocking to our sense of fairness and remand the matter for imposition of a lesser penalty (see, Matter of Turner v. Franco, 237 A.D.2d 225, 655 N.Y.S.2d 935; Matter of Cheek v. Hernandez-Pinero, 198 A.D.2d 106, 603 N.Y.S.2d 831, lv. denied 84 N.Y.2d 801, 617 N.Y.S.2d 135, 641 N.E.2d 156).
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
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 26, 1999
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)