Summary of Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The caption identifies the parties as In the Matter of Carlos Serrano et al., Petitioners, v. Emanuel P. Popolizio, as Chairman of the New York City Housing Authority, et al., Respondents. The decision is from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, dated May 7, 1992, on appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.).

The contested facts, as stated in the opinion, concern respondent's claim that petitioners' son resided with petitioners in violation of a permanent order of exclusion. Respondent offered the son's unverified, hearsay statement to respondent's police officers as evidence of residence. The Hearing Officer found petitioners' responses—described as blanket denials—unworthy of belief. The Appellate Division reviewed the Hearing Officer's credibility determination and the challenge to the penalty of termination.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the evidence offered by respondent (the son's unverified hearsay statement to police officers) was sufficient to require petitioners to produce evidence that the son resided elsewhere.
2. Whether the Hearing Officer's credibility determination rejecting petitioners' blanket denials should be overturned by the court.
3. Whether the penalty of termination imposed on petitioners was excessive.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent's Arguments

• Respondent relied on the son's unverified statement to respondent's police officers to support its claim that the son resided with petitioners in violation of a permanent exclusion order.
• Implicitly, respondent maintained that this evidence sufficed to shift the burden to petitioners to produce contrary evidence about the son's residence.

Petitioners' Arguments

• Petitioners tendered only blanket denials that their son resided with them; those denials were found unworthy of belief by the Hearing Officer.
• Petitioners contended that the penalty of termination was excessive.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis proceeded in a short, focused sequence:

1. The court characterized respondent's evidence—primarily the son's unverified, hearsay statement to respondent's police officers—as "hardly compelling," but nevertheless sufficient to require petitioners to produce evidence that the son resided elsewhere. In other words, the initial showing by respondent was enough to shift the evidentiary burden to petitioners to rebut the claim of residence.
2. Petitioners failed to meet that burden; they offered only blanket denials. The Hearing Officer disbelieved those denials. The Appellate Division identified that credibility determination as the operative factual finding.
3. Relying on controlling authority (cited as Matter of Jimenez v Popolizio and Matter of David v. Christian), the court explained that it would not second-guess the Hearing Officer's credibility determination. The court thus declined to overturn the Hearing Officer's factual conclusions regarding the son's residence.
4. The court also addressed petitioners' contention that the penalty of termination was excessive, explicitly rejecting that claim. The opinion does not elaborate on remedial or alternative penalties; it simply states the court's rejection of the excessive-penalty claim.

Holding and Implications

The Appellate Division upheld the Hearing Officer's credibility determination and rejected petitioners' claim that the penalty of termination was excessive.

Implications: The direct effect is that the Hearing Officer's factual finding (that the son resided with petitioners in violation of a permanent order of exclusion) and the consequent termination penalty were sustained by the Appellate Division. The opinion rests on deference to the Hearing Officer's credibility determination and cites precedent for that principle. The opinion does not announce or discuss any new legal rule or broader precedent beyond applying established deference to credibility findings.

Concurrence: The opinion notes concurrence by Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Kassal, JJ.