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: Anne BALDWIN, Petitioner, v. Tino HERNANDEZ, as Chairman and Member of the New York City Housing Authority, Respondent.
Determination by the Housing Authority, dated November 28, 2007, which permanently excluded petitioner's son from her public housing apartment, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and this proceeding, transferred to this Court under CPLR 7804(g) by order of Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin G. Diamond, J.), entered August 7, 2008, dismissed, without costs.
The conditioning of petitioner's continued tenancy on exclusion of her son for non-desirability is supported by substantial evidence, and was not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Canales v. Hernandez, 13 A.D.3d 263, 787 N.Y.S.2d 261 [2004] ). Where this petitioner's son had pleaded guilty to the assault of a female, threatened two Housing Authority employees, and left harassing messages on the home telephone of his former supervisor, the penalty of continued tenancy conditioned on his exclusion was appropriate and was not shocking to the conscience (see Matter of Featherstone v. Franco, 95 N.Y.2d 550, 720 N.Y.S.2d 93, 742 N.E.2d 607 [2000] ).
The hearing officer's grant of additional time for the Housing Authority to submit a written closing statement caused no prejudice to petitioner. Furthermore, the issuance of a decision within one week after receipt of the parties' submissions was not contrary to the Housing Authority's Termination of Tenancy Procedures, which require a reasonably timely decision. Petitioner was not deprived of due process.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: December 29, 2009
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)