Case Name: Henry Phipps Plaza South Associates Ltd., Partnership, Respondent, v. Judith Quijano, Appellant, et al., Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2014-08-05
Citations: 45 Misc.3d 12
Docket Number: 
Parties: Henry Phipps Plaza South Associates Ltd., Partnership, Respondent, v Judith Quijano, Appellant, et al., Respondents.
Judges: Lowe, III, EJ., and Hunter, Jr., J., concur; Schoenfeld, J. dissents in a separate opinion.
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 45
Pages: 12–17

Head Matter:
[993 NYS2d 428]
Henry Phipps Plaza South Associates Ltd., Partnership, Respondent, v Judith Quijano, Appellant, et al., Respondents.
Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
August 5, 2014
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
William E. Leavitt, New York City, for appellant.
Gutman, Mintz, Baker & Sonnenfeldt, P.C., New Hyde Park (Arianna Gonzalez-Abreu of counsel), for Henry Phipps Plaza South Associates Ltd., Partnership, respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Per Curiam.
Final judgment, entered August 6, 2012, affirmed, with $25 costs.
The trial court's fact-laden determination that tenants intentionally misrepresented their household income on annual Section 8 recertifications finds ample support in the record and, indeed, is not now challenged by tenant appellant on sufficiency or weight of the evidence grounds. Nor is the penalty of termination of the tenancy disproportionate to tenants' misconduct, particularly in this case, where tenant appellant's present argument that the misrepresentation was short-lived and the under-reporting of income de minimis, was not raised at trial and, in fact, was contrary to tenants' (ultimately discredited) trial testimony that no violation occurred. Moreover, tenant-appellant's current claim that the unlawful occupant vacated the premises in April 2011 is belied by the credited trial testimony of the Department of Housing and Urban Development inspector. "A vital public interest underlies the need to enforce income rules pertaining to public housing . . . The deterrent value of eviction . is clearly significant and supports the purposes of the limited supply of publicly-supported housing" (see Matter of Perez v Rhea, 20 NY3d 399, 405 [2013]).
Tenant appellant's remaining arguments are unpreserved for appellate review, and, in any event, are unavailing.