Matter of Gray v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 2020 NY Slip Op 07570 [189 AD3d 1234]
December 16, 2020
Appellate Division, Second Department
[*1]
In the Matter of John Gray et al., Petitioners,
v
New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal et al., Respondents.
Stern & Stern, Brooklyn, NY (Pamela Smith of counsel), for petitioners.
Mark F. Palomino, New York, NY (Anita Shia of counsel), for respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal dated February 6, 2018. The determination adopted the recommendation of an administrative law judge, made after a hearing, finding that the petitioners engaged in a course of conduct constituting harassment and assessed civil penalties in the total sum of $55,000 against the petitioners.
Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs payable to the respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal.
The administrative law judge providently exercised her discretion in declining to grant the petitioners a further adjournment of the hearing so that they could hire an attorney ( see Matter of Estafanous v New York City Envtl. Control Bd. , 136 AD3d 906 [2016]).
Contrary to the petitioners’ contention, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the determination and findings made by the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal ( see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights , 45 NY2d 176, 180 [1978]).
We also find that the penalty imposed was not excessive or shocking to one’s sense of fairness ( see Matter of Kelly v Safir , 96 NY2d 32, 38 [2001]; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County , 34 NY2d 222, 230 [1974]). Mastro, J.P., Roman, Hinds-Radix and Connolly, JJ., concur..