Anthony AUGUSTA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF LONG ISLAND, Defendant-Appellee, 363 F. App'x 79

SUMMARY ORDER Anthony Augusta, pro se, appeals from the district court’s order granting the Community Development Corporation of Long Island’s motion for

summary judgment as to his complaint alleging that defendant violated his due process rights by terminating his

Section 8 housing voucher without a hearing. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history. Upon review of the record and case law, the district court did not err in finding that defendant was entitled to

summary judgment because the evidence established that plaintiffs voucher was not terminated before it expired by its own terms, and plaintiff was therefore never entitled to a hearing. “[Njonmoving parties ... may not rely on conclusory allegations or unsubstantiated speculation.” Jeffreys v. City of New York, 426 F.3d 549, 554 (2d Cir.2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). Further, “[w]hen opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for

summary judgment.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007); see also Jeffreys, 426 F.3d at 555 (summary judgment is proper where plaintiff’s testimony is “largely unsubstantiated by any other direct evidence” and “so replete with inconsistencies and improbabilities that no reasonable juror would undertake the suspension of disbelief necessary to credit the allegations made in his complaint.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

In the present case, the district court correctly found that defendant met its burden of showing that the evidence was not such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that his voucher was terminated before it expired. However, this claim is inconsistent with plaintiffs own testimony that he was repeatedly told there were steps that he could take to obtain further housing using the voucher. Further, plaintiff admits that he was never told that his voucher had been revoked, and that he could not recall specific details concerning his conversations with defendant’s agents.

In light of the inconsistent and incomplete nature of plaintiffs testimony and the lack of corroborating evidence, the district court did not err in concluding that plaintiffs testimony was unreliable. For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.