Opinion
2013-04-2
In re Marie PERRETTE, Petitioner, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT, Respondent.
Vincent J. Licata, New York, for petitioner. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Susan B. Eisner of counsel), for respondent.
Vincent J. Licata, New York, for petitioner. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Susan B. Eisner of counsel), for respondent.
TOM, J.P., ANDRIAS, ACOSTA, MOSKOWITZ, ABDUS–SALAAM, JJ.
Determination of respondent New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), dated February 24, 2010, which, after a hearing, terminated petitioner's section 8 rent subsidy, 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 October 20, 2010), dismissed, without costs.
The Hearing Officer's finding that petitioner intentionally failed to report approximately $30,000 of income earned by her daughter during a three-year period is supported by substantial evidence ( see Matter of Purdy v. Kreisberg, 47 N.Y.2d 354, 358, 418 N.Y.S.2d 329, 391 N.E.2d 1307 [1979] ). He also found that while petitioner would not be able to afford the apartment without assistance, she will not be rendered homeless as a result of the termination of the subsidy, and that there are no mitigating circumstances sufficient to warrant reversal of HPD's termination of the benefits. Here, as in Matter of Perez v. Rhea, 20 N.Y.3d 399, 960 N.Y.S.2d 727, 984 N.E.2d 925 [2013], “termination of plaintiff's tenancy was not ‘so disproportionate to the offense, in the light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness.’ ” As noted by the Court in Perez, “[a] vital public interest underlies the need to enforce income rules pertaining to public housing.... The deterrent value of eviction [ ] is clearly significant and supports the purposes of the limited supply of publicly-supported housing.” Notwithstanding the hardship to petitioner, the penalty of termination is confirmed ( see Matter of Cubilete v. Morales, 92 A.D.3d 470, 937 N.Y.S.2d 851 [1st Dept. 2012] ).