IN RE CARMEN VELEZ, pet, v. MATHEW M. WAMBUA, ETC., res

10284. IN RE CARMEN VELEZ, pet, v. MATHEW M. WAMBUA, ETC., res — Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, LLP, New York (James G. Foster for counsel), for pet — Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Victoria Scalzo of counsel), for res — Determination of respondent New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), dated February 29, 2012, 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 [Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.], entered October 9, 2012), dismissed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

10284. IN RE CARMEN VELEZ, pet, v. MATHEW M. WAMBUA, ETC., res — Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, LLP, New York (James G. Foster for counsel), for pet — Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Victoria Scalzo of counsel), for res — Determination of respondent New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), dated February 29, 2012, 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 [Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.], entered October 9, 2012), dismissed, without costs.

The challenged determination is supported by substantial evidence (see generally Matter of Purdy v. Kreisberg, 47 NY2d 354, 358 [1979]). Petitioner made numerous false representations to HPD about her income and employment status, despite multiple warnings that doing so could result in termination of the subsidy. Petitioner’s argument that she mailed pay stubs to HPD and relied upon the erroneous advice of an HPD employee is unavailing. The Hearing Officer discredited petitioner’s testimony to that effect, and there is no basis upon which to disturb this credibility determination (see Matter of Beckles v. Cestero, 102 AD3d 559 [1st Dept 2013]).

IN RE CARMEN VELEZ, pet, v. MATHEW M. WAMBUA, ETC., res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal