Due Process and Brain Surgery

An evidentiary hearing before the court to supplement the record should
not have been directed, and instead the matter should have been
remitted to the Housing Authority for further proceedings (see Matter of Ansonia Assoc. v State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 147 AD2d 420, 421 [1989]; Matter of Board of Educ. of Pleasantville Union Free School Dist. v Ambach,
132 AD2d 257, 261 [1987]). Further consideration by the agency is
warranted because petitioner underwent major brain surgery some five
months before the administrative hearing and exhibited some confusion
at the hearing. As a result of the Hearing Officer's failure to
question petitioner, who represented herself pro se, about her medical
issues and their ramifications, petitioner was not afforded a full
opportunity to be heard, particularly with respect to when her [*2]tenancy commenced (see Matter of Hall v Municipal Hous. Auth. for City of Yonkers, 57 AD2d 894, 894-895 [1977], appeal dismissed 42 NY2d 973 [1977], lv denied
42 NY2d 805 [1977] [due process affords public housing tenants the
right of opportunity to be heard]. Pursuant to Supreme Court's
directive, petitioner submitted evidence that she had co-resided in the
apartment with her mother for more than the requisite year and that
respondent implicitly approved of the co-residency (see Matter of McFarlane v New York City Hous. Auth., 9 AD3d 289, 291 [2004]).