| Matter of Gonzalez v Mulligan |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 09393 [45 AD3d 841] |
| November 27, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Mayra Gonzalez, Appellant, v GerardMulligan et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Charlene M. Indelicato, County Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Stacey Dolgin-Kmetz andThomas G. Gardiner of counsel), for respondents.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the WestchesterCounty Section 8 Rental Assistance Program of the Westchester County Department of Planningdated July 14, 2005, which, after a hearing, confirmed its initial determination to terminate thepetitioner's participation in the Section 8 Tenant Based Assistance Program administered andfunded by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, the petitioner appealsfrom a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (DiBella, J.), entered April 18,2006, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding on the merits.
Ordered that the appeal is dismissed and the judgment is vacated; and it is further,
Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding isdismissed on the merits, with costs.
Since the petition, in effect, raises a question of whether the challenged determination issupported by substantial evidence, and the remaining points raised by the petitioner that weredisposed of by the Supreme Court are not objections that could have terminated that proceedingwithin the meaning of CPLR 7804 (g), the Supreme Court should have transferred the proceedingto this Court (see Matter of SurewayTowing, Inc. v Martinez, 8 AD3d 490 [2004]; Matter of Stein v County ofRockland, 259 AD2d 552, 553 [1999]). Nonetheless, since the record is now before us, wewill treat the [*2]proceeding as if it had been properly transferred,and review the matter accordingly (id.).
A hearing officer of the Westchester County Section 8 Rental Assistance Program of theWestchester County Department of Planning upheld the termination of the petitioner's benefitsunder the federal Section 8 Tenant Based Assistance Program on the grounds that she failed tosupply truthful and complete information with respect to her application, failed to obtain requiredapproval to add an individual to her household, and failed to provide additional relevantinformation when requested. The determination is supported by substantial evidence, includingthe petitioner's admission at the hearing that she misrepresented her status as the custodial parentof her three children.
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit. Spolzino, J.P., Dillon, Angiolilloand Dickerson, JJ., concur.