Justice Paul Feinman
Frederick sought to annul a decision by New York City’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development to end his Section 8 subsidy in this Article 78 proceeding. The agency contended its determination was reasonable and rational as Frederick failed to complete his recertification application or appear for a scheduled hearing. Frederick argued he never received the initial mailing of the recertification papers, nor a notice for the date of the informal hearing. The court found Frederick failed to establish that the termination of his subsidy under the circumstances was arbitrary, noting his conclusory denial of receipt did not, alone, rebut the presumption of a proper mailing and delivery. But it found that the agency considered his appeal request form in which he claimed he did not receive his recertification papers, but he defaulted in appearing at his informal hearing. Therefore, the court stated, based on the record adduced at the agency level, the determination to end the subsidy was neither arbitrary nor capricious, and Frederick’s petition for annulment was denied.
