Summary
Housing Authority not required to provide tenant, who caused a fire in his apartment, with reasonable accommodation
Summary of this case from 529 W. 29th LLC v. ReyesOpinion
2015-05-26
In re Loretta HOBBS, Petitioner, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, et al., Respondents.
MFY Legal Services, Inc., New York (Sandra Gresl of counsel), for petitioner. David I. Farber, New York (Laura R. Bellrose of counsel), for respondents.
MFY Legal Services, Inc., New York (Sandra Gresl of counsel), for petitioner. David I. Farber, New York (Laura R. Bellrose of counsel), for respondents.
MAZZARELLI, J.P., ACOSTA, RENWICK, MANZANET–DANIELS, FEINMAN, JJ.
Determination by respondents, dated August 7, 2013, terminating petitioner's tenancy on the grounds of undesirability and violation of provisions of the lease and rules and regulations, 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 [Cynthia S. Kern, J.], entered April 25, 2014) dismissed, without costs.
The agency's determination that, among other things, petitioner caused a fire in her apartment by lighting a candle in a closet containing clothing, is supported by substantial evidence ( see Matter of Forman v. New York City Hous. Auth., 66 N.Y.2d 899, 498 N.Y.S.2d 773, 489 N.E.2d 742 [1985], revg. on dissent below, 110 A.D.2d 516, 516–20, 487 N.Y.S.2d 1018 [1st Dept.1985]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] ). The record also shows that petitioner had a prior fire in her apartment and that she kept 2 unregistered pitbull terrier dogs in her apartment. Respondents' refusal to accommodate petitioner by continuing her tenancy subject to the agency's continued monitoring of her mental health and fire safety compliance did not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act or the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 ( see42 U.S.C. § 3604[f][2], [3][B], [9]; 42 U.S.C. § 12132; Matter of Canales v. Hernandez, 13 A.D.3d 263, 264, 787 N.Y.S.2d 261 [1st Dept.2004] ).
Under the circumstances, the penalty of termination is not shockingly disproportionate to the offense ( see Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222, 233, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321 [1974] ).
We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.