Herman v. NYC Department of Housing Preservation & Development

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Herman v. NYC Department of Housing Preservation & Development

2017 NY Slip Op 646, 147 A.D.3d 756, 45 N.Y.S.3d 803

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

DecidedFebruary 1, 2017

Docket2015-01433

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 646 (Herman v. NYC Department of Housing Preservation & Development) 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

Herman v. NYC Department of Housing Preservation & Development, 2017 NY Slip Op 646, 147 A.D.3d 756, 45 N.Y.S.3d 803 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

*757 In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development dated September 26, 2011, terminating the petitioner’s benefits under Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 USC § 1437f [b] [1]), which determination was annulled in a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered November 7, 2012, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Edwards, J.), dated October 28, 2014, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 8601 for an award of attorneys’ fees.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner’s federal housing subsidy payments were terminated by the respondent New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (hereinafter HPD). The petitioner subsequently commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge that determination, and he ultimately succeeded in having his housing subsidy retroactively restored (see Matter of Herman v New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 118 AD3d 701 [2014]). He then moved pursuant to CPLR 8601 to recover attorneys’ fees from HPD. The Supreme Court denied the motion.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, HPD is a city agency, and is not liable for attorneys’ fees under CPLR article 86, which authorizes the recovery of those fees under limited circumstances from the State and its agencies and officials (see CPLR 8600; 8602 [g]; Hernandez v Hammons, 98 NY2d 735 [2002]; Knox v New York City Dept. of Educ., 100 AD3d 486 [2012]).

The petitioner’s contention that HPD is precluded from denying that it is a State agency by 'reason of judicial estoppel or by its alleged admission of that status is without merit (see CPLR 5519 [a] [1]; 8602 [g]; see generally Festinger v Edrich, 32 AD3d 412 [2006]).

Leventhal, J.P., Hall, Sgroi and Duffy, JJ., concur.

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

*757 In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development dated September 26, 2011, terminating the petitioner’s benefits under Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 USC § 1437f [b] [1]), which determination was annulled in a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered November 7, 2012, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Edwards, J.), dated October 28, 2014, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 8601 for an award of attorneys’ fees.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner’s federal housing subsidy payments were terminated by the respondent New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (hereinafter HPD). The petitioner subsequently commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge that determination, and he ultimately succeeded in having his housing subsidy retroactively restored (see Matter of Herman v New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 118 AD3d 701 [2014]). He then moved pursuant to CPLR 8601 to recover attorneys’ fees from HPD. The Supreme Court denied the motion.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, HPD is a city agency, and is not liable for attorneys’ fees under CPLR article 86, which authorizes the recovery of those fees under limited circumstances from the State and its agencies and officials (see CPLR 8600; 8602 [g]; Hernandez v Hammons, 98 NY2d 735 [2002]; Knox v New York City Dept. of Educ., 100 AD3d 486 [2012]).

The petitioner’s contention that HPD is precluded from denying that it is a State agency by 'reason of judicial estoppel or by its alleged admission of that status is without merit (see CPLR 5519 [a] [1]; 8602 [g]; see generally Festinger v Edrich, 32 AD3d 412 [2006]).

Leventhal, J.P., Hall, Sgroi and Duffy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 646, 147 A.D.3d 756, 45 N.Y.S.3d 803, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herman-v-nyc-department-of-housing-preservation-development-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack