In the Matter of Paula Cruz, Respondent, v New York City Housing Authority, Appellant.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
2013
966 NYS2d 399
The petition raises an issue of substantial evidence and therefore, the proceeding should have been transferred to this Court pursuant to
The determination terminating petitioner’s tenancy for violation of the permanent exclusion stipulation in which she agreed to permanently exclude her son from the subject apartment, is supported by substantial evidence (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180 [1978]). The record shows that petitioner’s son, who was barred from the apartment for drug-related activity, maintained a room in the apartment, visited regularly, and was arrested in the apartment while in possession of crack cocaine.
Although the penalty imposed will likely have significant adverse consequences for petitioner, she failed to take any action to prevent her son from using the premises (see Matter of Perez v Rhea, 20 NY3d 399 [2013]). Moreover, the other residents of the development should not be placed at risk by the criminal activities of petitioner’s son (see e.g. Matter of Gibbs v New York City Hous. Auth., 82 AD3d 412 [1st Dept 2011]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, DeGrasse, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
