09 -00 87 -cv A ugusta v. Com

m un ity Dev elop m ent Corp oratio n of L on g Is land , Inc.



### UNI TED S TATES COURT OF AP P EALS FO R TH E SEC O N D C IRC U IT


# S UMM ARY ORDE R

R U LI N GS B Y SU M M A R Y O R D ER D O N O T H A V E P R ECED ENTI A L EF FEC T. C I TATI O N TO A S U M M A R Y O R D ER FI LED AF T E R J ANUARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S P E RM I T T E D AND I S GOVE RNE D BY F E DE RAL RUL E OF AP PE L L A TE PR OCEDUR E 3 2

. 1 AND T HI S COURT ’ S L OCAL RUL E 3 2

. 1

. 1

. W HEN C I T I NG A S U M M A R Y ORDE R I N A DOCUM E NT F I L E D W I T H THI S CO U R T, A P ART Y M US T CI T E E I T HER T HE F E DE RAL AP PE NDI X OR AN ELECTR O N I C D A T A B A SE ( W I T H TH E N O T A T I O N “SU M M A R Y O R D E R ”). A PA R TY C I TI N G A S U M M A R Y O R D ER M U ST SERV E A C O PY O F I T O N AN Y PAR TY N O T REPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL.

Ata s ta te d t e r mof t he Uni te d St at e s C our t o f Appe als forth e Se c ond C ir c uit , he ld at the Daniel P atric k Moynih an United S tate s Courthouse, 500 P earl Str eet , in the City of Ne w Yo r k, o n t he 29 dayof Ja nuary, two th ous and t e n. th

PRES ENT: J OHN M. WALKER, J R.,

CH ES TERJ . S TRAUB, ROSEMARY S. P OOL ER, Circuit Judges

.

__________________________________________ Anthony Augusta, Plaintif

f-Appellant ,

v. 09-0087-c v

Communi ty

Deve lopment Corporation of L ong I sland,
Defendant- Appellee

.

___________________________________________ 1 2 FOR APPEL LANT: Anthony Augusta, pro s e , Gre enlawn, 3 New Y ork. 4 5 F OR

APP ELL EE : Sc ott

G. Christ e se n; F umu so , K e lly , D e Ve rn a , Snyde r, Swa rt & F arr e ll 6 L L P; Hauppaug e, Ne w York. 72 1 Appea l from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Easter

n District of 2 New Y ork (Gle eson, J.). 3 4 UP ON DUE CONSIDERATION IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, ADJUD GED, A ND 5 DECREED that the judgment of the district cour t be AF F IRMED. 6 7 Anthony Augusta, pro s e , a

pp e a ls f ro m th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s or de r gra nti ngtheCommun ity 8 Deve lopment Corporation of L ongI sland’s motion for summary judgme nt as to his complaint 9 alleg ing that defe ndant violated his due proc ess rights by terminatinghis Section 8 housing 10 voucher

without a hearing. We a ssume the par ties' familiarity

with the fac ts and proce dural 11 history

. 12 13 Upon re view of the rec ord and c ase la w, the district cour

t did not err in findingthat 14 defe ndant was e ntitled to sum mary judgme nt beca

use the e vidence established that plaintiff’ s 15 voucher

was not terminate d befor e it expired by its own terms, and plaintiff wa s theref ore ne ver 16 entitled to a hea ring . "[N]onmoving par

ties ... may

not rely on conclusory

alleg ations or 17 un subs tan ti ate d s pecu lat io n. " J e ffre y s v . Ci ty of N e w York, 426 F.3d 549, 554 ( 2d Cir. 2005) 18 (i nte rn a l qu otatio n ma rk s o mitte d) . F ur

the r, " [w]he n o pp os ingpa rt ie s te ll two dif

fe re nt s torie s, 19 one of which is blatantly contra dicted by

the re cord, so that no r easona ble jury could believe it, a 20 court should not adopt that ver sion of the fa cts for pur poses of rulingon a motion for summary 21 ju dgmen t. " Sc ott v . H arris , 5 50 U. S. 3 72 , 3 80 (2 00 7) ; see also Je ffreys , 426 F.3d at 555 22 (summary

judgme nt is proper whe re pla intiff' s testimony is "larg ely

unsubstantiated by

any other 23 direc t evidence " a nd "so replete w ith inconsistencies and improbabilities that no rea sonable juror 24 wo uld

un de rt ake thesu sp e ns ion of dis be lie f n e c e ssa

ry to c re dit thea lle g atio ns ma de in h is 25 complaint.") (interna l quotation marks omitted). 26 27 In the pre sent ca se, the district cour t corre ctly

found that def

endant met its burden of 28 showingthat the evidenc e wa s not such that a re asonable jury could re turn a ve rdict for plaintiff. 29 Pla int if

f a lle g e s th at hi s v ou c he r w a s te rm inate d b e fo reit e xpir e d. Ho we ve r, thi s c la im i s 30 inconsistent with plaintiff’s own testimony that he wa s repe atedly

told there we re steps that he 31 could take to obtain f urther housingusing the voucher . Fur ther, plaintiff a dmits that he wa s never 32 told that his voucher had be en re voked, and that he could not re call spec ific deta ils concer ning 33 his c onve rs atio ns wi th d e fe nd ant’ s a g e nts

. In light of the inconsistent and incomplete nature of 34 pla int if

f’ s te sti mony

and thela c k o f c or

ro bo ra tin ge vid e nc e , th e dis tr ic t c ourt did no t e rr in 35 concludingthat plaintiff’s testimony was unre liable. 36 37 For

the re asons stated a

bove, the judgment of the district cour t is AFF I RMED. 38 39 FOR THECOURT: 40 Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk 41 42