Legal Opinion
Sicardo v. Smith
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided March 18, 2008PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*762The determination finding the petitioner in violation of the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program regulations due to her failure to notify the respondent that her former husband was living in the subject residence with her and her children (see 24 CFR 982.551 [h] [2]) was supported by substantial evidence (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176 [1978]; Matter of Steward v Mulligan, 47 AD3d 822 [2008]; cf. Matter of Pena v Mulligan, 32 AD3d 952, 953 [2006]). However, under the particular circumstances of this case, the penalty imposed was so disproportionate…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- 300 Gramatan Avenue Associates v. State Division of Human RightsNew York Court of Appeals · 1978
- Kreisler v. New York City Transit AuthorityNew York Court of Appeals · 2004
- Smith v. New York City Housing AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- Steward v. MulliganAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- Pena v. MulliganAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
3Cited by8 opinions
- Gist v. MulliganAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Alexander v. RheaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Duroseau v. CesteroAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Duroseau v. CesteroAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Gist v. MulliganAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.