IN RE SANAYI BECKLES, pet, v. RAFAEL E. CESTERO, ETC., res

8390. IN RE SANAYI BECKLES, pet, v. RAFAEL E. CESTERO, ETC., res — SANAYI BECKLES, PETITIONER PRO SE. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Graham Morrison of counsel), for res — Determination of respondent New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), dated February 28, 2011, terminating petitioner's Section 8 rent subsidy on the ground that she fraudulently misrepresented her household income, 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 [Tanya R. Kennedy, J.], entered July 27, 2011) dismissed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

8390. IN RE SANAYI BECKLES, pet, v. RAFAEL E. CESTERO, ETC., res — SANAYI BECKLES, PETITIONER PRO SE. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Graham Morrison of counsel), for res — Determination of respondent New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), dated February 28, 2011, terminating petitioner’s Section 8 rent subsidy on the ground that she fraudulently misrepresented her household income, 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 [Tanya R. Kennedy, J.], entered July 27, 2011) dismissed, without costs.

The determination was supported by substantial evidence showing that petitioner intentionally failed to disclose over $93,000 in income over the course of four years (see Matter of Purdy v. Kreisberg, 47 NY2d 354, 358 [1979]). Indeed, petitioner admits that she “significantly underreported her income for several years.” Petitioner’s assertions that she did not intentionally underreport her income, that she disclosed her income by submitting paystubs and by informing HPD caseworkers of the undisclosed employment, and that HPD employees assured her that she did not need to disclose a second, legally obtained social security number, were considered and rejected by the hearing officer and there exists no basis to disturb these credibility determinations (see Matter of Berenhaus v. Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444 [1987]; Matter of Porter v. New York City Hous. Auth., 42 AD3d 314 [1st Dept 2007]).

IN RE SANAYI BECKLES, pet, v. RAFAEL E. CESTERO, ETC., res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal