IN RE: Louisa BROWN (2006)

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York City Housing Authority dated August 20, 2003, adopting the recommendation of a hearing officer dated August 1, 2003, made after a hearing, finding that the petitioner was ineligible for continued occupancy on the ground of, inter alia, non-desirability, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), dated September 14, 2004, which, in effect, granted the petition and annulled the determination.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed and the judgment is vacated;  and it is further,

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits;  and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.

 Since a question of substantial evidence is involved, this proceeding should have been transferred to this court pursuant to CPLR 7804(g).  However, this court will treat the matter as one initially transferred here and will review the administrative determination on that basis (see Matter of Weingarten v. Crime Victims Bd., 22 A.D.3d 763, 804 N.Y.S.2d 380;  Matter of Tutuianu v. New York State, 22 A.D.3d 503, 802 N.Y.S.2d 465;  Matter of Sureway Towing. v. Martinez, 8 A.D.3d 490, 779 N.Y.S.2d 109;  Matter of Kilafofski v. Blackburne, 201 A.D.2d 564, 609 N.Y.S.2d 819).

 The petitioner is a tenant in a public housing development administered by the New York City Housing Authority (hereinafter the Housing Authority).   The Housing Authority sought to terminate her tenancy after a search of her apartment, pursuant to a search warrant, recovered, inter alia, 159 ziploc bags of crack cocaine and 19 ziploc bags of marijuana.   Following an administrative hearing, the hearing officer recommended that the petitioner's tenancy be terminated, and the Housing Authority adopted the recommendation.   The petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review the determination.   The Supreme Court, in effect, granted the petition and annulled the determination.

The determination was supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Satterwhite v. Hernandez, 16 A.D.3d 131, 132, 790 N.Y.S.2d 124;  Matter of Cruz v. New York City Hous. Auth., 282 A.D.2d 230, 722 N.Y.S.2d 548;  Matter of Fuller v. New York City Hous. Auth., 281 A.D.2d 231, 721 N.Y.S.2d 768;  Matter of Walker v. Franco, 275 A.D.2d 627, 713 N.Y.S.2d 164, affd. 96 N.Y.2d 891, 730 N.Y.S.2d 785, 756 N.E.2d 74;  Matter of Willock v. Schenectady Mun. Hous. Auth., 271 A.D.2d 818, 819, 706 N.Y.S.2d 503;  Matter of Ortiz v. Franco, 259 A.D.2d 445, 687 N.Y.S.2d 345;  Matter of Ortiz v. New York City Hous. Auth., 245 A.D.2d 86, 86-87, 666 N.Y.S.2d 120;  Matter of Simons v. New York City Hous. Auth., 232 A.D.2d 195, 648 N.Y.S.2d 18;  Matter of Rivera v. Hernandez-Pinero, 205 A.D.2d 473, 474, 615 N.Y.S.2d 991;  Matter of Burgess v. Popolizio, 169 A.D.2d 831, 832, 565 N.Y.S.2d 201).   We discern no basis to disturb the Hearing Officer's assessment of credibility (see Matter of Berenhaus v. Ward, 70 N.Y.2d 436, 443, 522 N.Y.S.2d 478, 517 N.E.2d 193).   Accordingly, we confirm the determination, deny the petition, and dismiss the proceeding.