Opinion
10-26-2017
In re Opher HENDERSON, Petitioner, v. Vicki BEEN, etc., et al., Respondents.
Manhattan Legal Services, New York (John Briggs of counsel), for petitioner. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Antonella Karlin of counsel), for respondents.
Manhattan Legal Services, New York (John Briggs of counsel), for petitioner.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Antonella Karlin of counsel), for respondents.
TOM, J.P., RICHTER, ANDRIAS, GESMER, SINGH, JJ.
Determination of respondents Vicki Been, as Commissioner of the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, and the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, dated March 20, 2015, terminating petitioner's Section 8 subsidy, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Joan B. Lobis J.], entered February 5, 2016), unanimously dismissed, without costs.
Substantial evidence supports respondents' determination that a member of petitioner's household engaged in drug- related criminal activity from her apartment in respondents' facility, and that petitioner was aware of the drug activity (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 180–182, 408 N.Y.S.2d 54, 379 N.E.2d 1183 [1978] ). Police records indicated that a confidential informant bought illegal drugs from a member of petitioner's household in the apartment on four occasions during the late afternoon and evening, and police recovered drugs and drug paraphernalia, including a scale, bags, rubber bands and a coffee grinder, all with heroin residue, in the apartment.
The Hearing Officer's conclusion that petitioner was at home when the drug sales occurred was a rational, plausible conclusion to be drawn from petitioner's testimony that she was unemployed and on public assistance (see Testwell, Inc. v. New York City Dept. of Bldgs., 80 A.D.3d 266, 276 n. 3, 913 N.Y.S.2d 53 [1st Dept.2010] ; see Matter of Jennings v. New York State Off. of Mental Health, 90 N.Y.2d 227, 239, 660 N.Y.S.2d 352, 682 N.E.2d 953 [1997] [existence of alternative rational conclusions does not warrant annulment of the agency's conclusion] ). The Hearing Officer's determination that petitioner's claim of ignorance was not credible is entitled to deference (Matter of Satterwhite v. Hernandez, 16 A.D.3d 131, 132, 790 N.Y.S.2d 124 [1st Dept.2005] ; see Matter of Walker v. Franco, 275 A.D.2d 627, 713 N.Y.S.2d 164 [1st Dept.2000], affd. 96 N.Y.2d 891, 730 N.Y.S.2d 785, 756 N.E.2d 74 [2001] ). The termination of petitioner's Section 8 subsidy is not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness (see Douglas v. New York City Hous. Auth., 126 A.D.3d 647, 4 N.Y.S.3d 495 [1st Dept.2015] ).