Venkatesan v. Hover

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Venkatesan v. Hover, 7 F. App'x 72 (2d Cir. 2001)
Judgesw, Leval, Raggi, Sack

Venkatesan v. Hover

Opinion of the Court

Plaintiff-appellant Shane Venkatesan appeals from a grant of summary judgment rejecting his claims that, inter alia, (1) defendant-appellee Harold Roth violated his due process rights in terminating his Section 8 Housing Assistance Benefits, (2) Sharon Venkatesan’s arson in the third degree was not violent criminal activity, which triggered the loss of Section 8 benefits, and (3) the Section 8 benefits were terminated because of Shane Venkatesan’s race or national origin.

Finding no merit in any of Venkatesan’s contentions, we affirm the district court.

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Reference

Full Case Name
Sharon L. VENKATESAN, Shane Venkatesan v. Merle HOVER, also known as Dee Hover, Mary Hover, Joseph Putrino, Barbara Putrino, Andrew Cuomo, HUD-Secretary, Harold Roth, Planning Director, Section 8 Housing
Status
Published