IN RE: Juan GIL (2019)

Determination of respondent New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), dated January 11, 2018, which, after a hearing, denied the petition and issued a certificate of eviction, unanimously confirmed, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Carmen Victoria St. George, J.], entered August 17, 2018), dismissed, without costs.

The hearing officer's determination to issue a certificate of eviction is rational and supported by substantial evidence, inasmuch as petitioners' lease expressly prohibited them from engaging in any unlawful activity in the subject apartment that threatened the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of such premises by other residents of the development and also prohibited petitioners from engaging in acts that would disturb the rights or comfort of their neighbors (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 180, 408 N.Y.S.2d 54, 379 N.E.2d 1183 (1978);  Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 N.Y.2d 222, 231, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321 [1974];  Matter of Goldstein v. Lewis, 90 A.D.2d 748, 749, 455 N.Y.S.2d 810 [1st Dept. 1982], affd 59 N.Y.2d 706, 463 N.Y.S.2d 421, 450 N.E.2d 227 [1983] ).  Petitioners' neighbors testified to loud, violent fights involving petitioners and their son on a regular basis, and in several instances, threats against specific neighbors.  Much of this testimony was corroborated by police reports and building security reports.

The hearing officer also found petitioners' denials not credible, a finding that is largely unreviewable (see Matter of Botkin v. Cadman Plaza N., 82 A.D.3d 527, 527–528, 919 N.Y.S.2d 10 [1st Dept. 2011] ).  Petitioners' claims that the hearing officer was biased and the hearing transcript was altered are unsupported by the record (see Matter of Gimenez v. Artus, 63 A.D.3d 1461, 1462, 881 N.Y.S.2d 551 [1st Dept. 2009] ).  Despite petitioners' claim that they were without counsel, the hearing was adjourned for four months initially, and then another month;  hence petitioners had adequate time to obtain representation.