09-0087-cv

Augusta v. Community Development Corporation of Long Island, Inc.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER

FILED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE

PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A

DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN

ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER

MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held

at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of

New York, on the 29 day of January, two thousand ten. th

PRESENT:

JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,

CHESTER J. STRAUB,

ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 

 Circuit Judges. 

__________________________________________

Anthony Augusta,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. 09-0087-cv 

Community Development Corporation of Long

Island,

Defendant-Appellee.

___________________________________________

1

2 FOR APPELLANT: Anthony Augusta, pro se, Greenlawn, 

3 New York.

4

5 FOR APPELLEE: Scott G. Christesen; Fumuso, Kelly, DeVerna, Snyder, Swart & Farrell

6 LLP; Hauppauge, New York.

7
2

1 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

2 New York (Gleeson, J.).

3

4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND

5 DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.

6

7 Anthony Augusta, pro se, appeals from the district court’s order granting the Community

8 Development Corporation of Long Island’s motion for summary judgment as to his complaint

9 alleging that defendant violated his due process rights by terminating his Section 8 housing

10 voucher without a hearing. We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts and procedural

11 history. 

12

13 Upon review of the record and case law, the district court did not err in finding that

14 defendant was entitled to summary judgment because the evidence established that plaintiff’s

15 voucher was not terminated before it expired by its own terms, and plaintiff was therefore never

16 entitled to a hearing. "[N]onmoving parties ... may not rely on conclusory allegations or

17 unsubstantiated speculation." Jeffreys v. City of New York, 426 F.3d 549, 554 (2d Cir. 2005)

18 (internal quotation marks omitted). Further, "[w]hen opposing parties tell two different stories,

19 one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a

20 court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary

21 judgment." Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007); see also Jeffreys, 426 F.3d at 555

22 (summary judgment is proper where plaintiff's testimony is "largely unsubstantiated by any other

23 direct evidence" and "so replete with inconsistencies and improbabilities that no reasonable juror

24 would undertake the suspension of disbelief necessary to credit the allegations made in his

25 complaint.") (internal quotation marks omitted). 

26

27 In the present case, the district court correctly found that defendant met its burden of

28 showing that the evidence was not such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for plaintiff. 

29 Plaintiff alleges that his voucher was terminated before it expired. However, this claim is

30 inconsistent with plaintiff’s own testimony that he was repeatedly told there were steps that he

31 could take to obtain further housing using the voucher. Further, plaintiff admits that he was never

32 told that his voucher had been revoked, and that he could not recall specific details concerning

33 his conversations with defendant’s agents. In light of the inconsistent and incomplete nature of

34 plaintiff’s testimony and the lack of corroborating evidence, the district court did not err in

35 concluding that plaintiff’s testimony was unreliable.

36

37 For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

38

39 FOR THE COURT:

40 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

41

42