IN RE: Arlene Botkin (2011)

Arlene Botkin, petitioner pro se.

Kagan Lubic Lepper Lewis Gold & Colbert, LLP, New York (Fran I. Lawless of counsel), for Cadman Plaza North, respondent.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Julie Steiner of counsel), for municipal respondent.

_

Determination of respondent New York City Housing Preservation and Development, dated June 16, 2009, which found petitioner's behavior constituted a nuisance, issued a certificate of eviction against her, stayed enforcement of the certificate, and placed her on probation for a period of five years, 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 [Carol R. Edmead, J.], entered January 20, 2010), dismissed, without costs.

The determination that petitioner engaged in behavior that constituted a nuisance was supported by substantial evidence, including the testimony of a mail carrier, a doorman in the building, and other cooperators, who all described instances of petitioner's objectionable conduct (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 180-181 [1978] ).   There exists no basis to disturb the Hearing Officer's credibility determinations, including the finding that it was not credible that every witness who testified that petitioner was the aggressor in their interactions with her was mistaken or lying (see Matter of Berenhaus v. Ward, 70 N.Y.2d 436, 443-444 [1987] ).

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.

_

CLERK