David v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

David v. New York City Housing Authority

162 A.D.2d 263, 556 N.Y.S.2d 621, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7385

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 19, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 162 A.D.2d 263 (David v. New York City Housing Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

David v. New York City Housing Authority, 162 A.D.2d 263, 556 N.Y.S.2d 621, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7385 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Hansel McGee, J.), entered November 27, 1989, which denied and dismissed the petition challenging a determination of the respondent New York City Housing Authority, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter remanded to the New York City Housing Authority for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.

[264]*264The petitioner, a section 8 tenant (see, 42 USC § 1437f), allegedly never received a notice sent by ordinary mail that her share of the monthly rental payment had been increased. At a hearing before the respondent Housing Authority, which administers the section 8 program in New York City, the Hearing Officer declined to make factual findings as to service of the notice, since petitioner did not contest the calculation of the rent increase. Petitioner’s contention has always been that the failure to notify her of the increase in her share of the rent has resulted in actual prejudice, since she was not billed for the increase share by the respondent landlord until some 10 months after the increase became effective, when the accrued delinquency was beyond her means to pay.

The agency should have determined the factual issue of service. If the tenant was not in fact served with the notice of rent adjustment, the agency should have determined, under the applicable regulations, whether the rent adjustment must be set aside as a result of the procedural irregularity. Pending this factual determination, and clarification of the agency’s determination, the respondent landlord is stayed from commencing or otherwise prosecuting any proceeding to recover possession of the premises. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Kassal, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Hansel McGee, J.), entered November 27, 1989, which denied and dismissed the petition challenging a determination of the respondent New York City Housing Authority, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter remanded to the New York City Housing Authority for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.

[264]*264The petitioner, a section 8 tenant (see, 42 USC § 1437f), allegedly never received a notice sent by ordinary mail that her share of the monthly rental payment had been increased. At a hearing before the respondent Housing Authority, which administers the section 8 program in New York City, the Hearing Officer declined to make factual findings as to service of the notice, since petitioner did not contest the calculation of the rent increase. Petitioner’s contention has always been that the failure to notify her of the increase in her share of the rent has resulted in actual prejudice, since she was not billed for the increase share by the respondent landlord until some 10 months after the increase became effective, when the accrued delinquency was beyond her means to pay.

The agency should have determined the factual issue of service. If the tenant was not in fact served with the notice of rent adjustment, the agency should have determined, under the applicable regulations, whether the rent adjustment must be set aside as a result of the procedural irregularity. Pending this factual determination, and clarification of the agency’s determination, the respondent landlord is stayed from commencing or otherwise prosecuting any proceeding to recover possession of the premises. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Kassal, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 A.D.2d 263, 556 N.Y.S.2d 621, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack