III
The defendant properly claims that a public housing tenant may not be deprived of his continued tenancy without first having been afforded the due process safeguards mandated by the federal constitution. See Escalera v. New York City Housing Authority, 425 F.2d 853, 860-61 (2d Cir. 1970). The fundamental requisites of due process of law are notice and an opportunity to be heard. Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 80,92 S.Ct. 1983, 32 L.Ed.2d 556 (1972). The hearing must be "at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552,85 S.Ct. 1187, 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965). These principles require that a tenant in a public housing project have timely and adequate notice detailing the reasons for a proposed eviction and an effective opportunity to defend by cross-examining witnesses and providing evidence and argument. Under our summary process statute a tenant is afforded a full judicial hearing to determine the right to possession of the premises. The defendant contends that the housing authority's failure to conduct an informal conference deprived *Page 523
her of due process of law. The right to due process does not require two hearings, however, and as long as a full judicial hearing is conducted prior to the threatened deprivation, the federal constitution has not been offended. See Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 267,90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970). The defendant was fully apprised of the grounds for the proposed eviction and was given an adequate opportunity to respond to them. She was not deprived of due process of law.