MANAGING RENT REGULATED PROPERTY FEDERAL S CITY … MRRP... · HOMEBASE: offers community-based support for households at risk of homelessness. HOMEBASE can help connect New Yorkers

NY

CL

A

CL

E

IN

ST

IT

UT

E

MANAGING RENT REGULATED PROPERTY:

FEDERAL, STATE AND CITY RENTAL ASSISTANCE

PROGRAMS Prepared in connection with a Continuing Legal Education course presented

at New York County Lawyers’ Association, 14 Vesey Street, New York, NY scheduled for June 7, 2017

Program Co-Sponsor:

Moderators: Mitchell Posilkin, RSA General Counsel and Robin Bernstein, RSA

Deputy Counsel

Faculty: Susan Bahn, Esq., The Legal Aid Society; Bruce Jordan, Chief Homeless Prevention Officer, HRA; Charles Wasserman, Esq., Novick, Edelstein, Lubell, Reisman,

Wasserman & Leventhal; Niles Welikson, Esq., Horing, Welikson & Rosen; Cathy Pennington, NYCHA; Robert Tesoriero, Director, Leased Housing, NYCHA ; Andrea

Foley- Murphy, Director, HPD; Pierre Dejean, Assistant Commissioner DOF, Bibi Parmar, Director, DOF

This course has been approved in accordance with the requirements of the New York State Continuing Legal Education Board for a maximum of 3 Transitional and Non-Transitional credit hours: 3 Professional Practice,

This program has been approved by the Board of Continuing Legal education of the Supreme Court of New Jersey for 3 hours of total CLE credits. Of these, 0 qualify as hours of credit for ethics/professionalism, and 0 qualify as hours of credit toward certification in civil trial law, criminal law, workers compensation law and/or matrimonial law.

ACCREDITED PROVIDER STATUS: NYCLA’s CLE Institute is currently certified as an Accredited Provider of continuing legal education in the States of New York and New Jersey.

New York County Lawyers’ Association

Continuing Legal Education Institute 14 Vesey Street, New York, N.Y. 10007 • (212) 267-6646

Managing Rent Regulated Property:

Federal, State and City Rental Assistance Programs June 7, 2017 9:00 AM - 12:00 PM

Program Co-Sponsor:

Faculty: Susan Bahn, Esq., The Legal Aid Society; Bruce Jordan, Chief Homelessness Prevention

Officer, HRA; Charles Wasserman, Esq., Novick, Edelstein, Lubell, Reisman, Wasserman & Leventhal; Niles Welikson, Esq., Horing, Welikson & Rosen; Cathy Pennington, Executive Vice-President, Leased Housing, NYCHA; Robert Tesoriero, Director, Leased Housing, NYCHA ; Andrea Foley- Murphy, Director, HPD; Pierre Dejean, Assistant Commissioner DOF, Bibi Parmar, Director, DOF

Moderators: Mitchell Posilkin, General Counsel, RSA Robin Bernstein, Deputy Counsel, RSA

AGENDA

9:00 A.M. - 9:10 A.M. Announcements Bari Chase, NYCLA 9:10 A.M. - 9:20 A.M. Introduction Mitchell Posilkin, RSA 9:20 A.M. - 9:40 A.M. The City’s Rental Assistance Programs Bruce Jordan, HRA 9:40 AM – 10:25 A.M Housing Court Proceedings/Rental Assistance Programs Charles Wasserman, Esq. Susan Bahn, Esq. 10:25 A.M.-10:35 A.M. Questions and Answers 10:35 A.M.-10:45 A.M. BREAK 10:45 A.M. – 11:05 A.M. The City’s Source of Income Law Niles Welikson, Esq. 11:05 A.M. - 11:30 A.M. Section 8 Cathy Pennington, NYCHA Robert Tesoriero, NYCHA Andrea Foley-Murphy, HPD 11:30 A.M. – 11:45A.M. SCRIE and DRIE Pierre Dejean, DOF Bibi Parmar, DOF 11:45 A.M. – 12:00 P.M. Questions and Answers

New York City Rental Assistance Programs

Human Resources Administration Department of Social Services

Introduction • Homelessness increased 115% between 1994 and

2014—and in just 3 years between 2011 and 2014, it grew 38% from 38,000 to 51,000 following the end of the Advantage rental assistance program.

• To address the citywide challenge of homelessness, this Administration has implemented a comprehensive range of tools since 2014 that have stabilized the shelter census, which would otherwise be at 70,000 today, rather than 58,790, and are beginning to turn the tide with a plan for the first sustained reduction in the shelter census in many years.

Human Resources Administration Department of Social Services

Rental Assistance: An Overview

There are a number of City rental assistance programs set up to address the varied needs of individuals and families in shelter, and those in danger of losing their homes: • The City Family Eviction Prevention Supplement (CITYFEPS) • The Special Exit and Prevention Supplement (SEPS) • The Living in Communities programs (LINC I-VI)

We also work to house clients through state and federally-funded rental assistance programs • Family Eviction Prevention Supplement (FEPS) • HOME Tenant Based Rental Assistance (HOME TBRA)

Human Resources Administration Department of Social Services

Rental Assistance Stats

• As of March, 2017, there were 359,067 NYC residents receiving Cash Assistance benefits, which include a shelter allowance

• Also in March, 7,363 NYC residents received one-time Emergency Assistance. In fiscal year 2016, approximately 57,000 households received Emergency Assistance grants

• 10,200 households received State FEPS in March of 2017

Human Resources Administration Department of Social Services

Rental Assistance Stats (Continued)

• Since this administration’s launch of City rental assistance and rehousing programs in 2015, the City has moved 21,000 households and 57,700 individuals out of shelter and into permanent housing placements or prevented their entry into shelter in the first place

• To accomplish this, the City used all programs at its disposal, including: LINC, FEPS, CITYFEPS, SEPS, HOME TBRA, NYCHA Housing, and Section 8

• The average monthly payment in City fiscal 2016 for City-funded rental assistance (LINC/SEPS/CFEPS) was $1,000–this does not include any contributions made by clients, or Cash Assistance shelter allowance payments

Human Resources Administration Department of Social Services

Rental Assistance Stats (Continued)

Since their inception in 2015 through March 2017, Rental Assistance Programs have provided: • LINC: 7,204 apartments rented by households comprised of

16,034 individuals • CITYFEPS: 3,919 apartments rented by households comprised

of 13,638 individuals • SEPS: 2,377 apartments rented by households comprised of

2,666 individuals • HOME TBRA: 372 apartments rented by households

comprised of 1,197 individuals

Human Resources Administration Department of Social Services

Rent Levels for City Rental Assistance Programs

Household Size

• 1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6

Maximum Rent Level

$1213 $1268 $1515 $1515 $1956 $1956

Human Resources Administration Department of Social Services

There are some variations among programs, but the general rent levels for the City’s rental assistance programs are based on household size as follows:

Current FEPS levels are significantly lower, but we anticipate substantial increases in those levels up to the general City rental assistance levels later this year.

CITYFEPS The City Family Eviction Prevention Supplement/Exit Plan Supplement (CITYFEPS) is geared primarily toward families with children in shelter with a recent eviction history.

CITYFEPS also helps families currently living in the community but identified as at risk of entering a shelter.

To receive rental assistance through CITYFEPS, families must: • Be receiving Cash Assistance and currently facing eviction, OR • within the past year, have faced eviction or had to leave their

apartment for specified reasons

Human Resources Administration Department of Social Services

SEPS

The Special Exit and Prevention Supplement (SEPS) is geared primarily toward assisting adult individuals and families in shelter who meet certain eligibility criteria. In addition to helping people leave shelter, SEPS provides rental assistance for certain low-income, childless single-adult and adult-family households at risk of homelessness and with no housing options except shelter.

Human Resources Administration Department of Social Services

LINC The Living in Communities (LINC) Rental Assistance programs were created to help move families out of shelter and into stable housing: • LINC I assists families with children in shelter who are working full-

time but are unable to afford stable housing on their own • LINC II assists families with children in shelter who are identified

within vulnerable populations and who need additional assistance and supports to relocate from the City shelter system

• LINC III provides rental assistance for families with children recently affected by domestic violence to relocate from the City shelter system – these families are selected from both HRA domestic violence shelters and families in DHS shelters whom HRA has certified as survivors of domestic violence

Human Resources Administration Department of Social Services

LINC (Continued) • LINC IV provides rental assistance to single adults and

adult families in shelter that include either a senior (60+) or an individual with a disability, and that are unable to afford stable housing on their own

• LINC V assists single adults and adult families in shelter who are working, but are unable to afford stable housing on their own to relocate from the City shelter system

• LINC VI helps families and individuals move out of shelter and reunify with host families consisting of friends or relatives

Human Resources Administration Department of Social Services

State and Federally-Funded Programs The HOME Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) Program is a HUD-funded rental assistance program run by HRA under the oversight of the Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD). • The program rules, duration, and rent levels are very similar to Section 8 • HRA HOME TBRA was offered in a lottery to households in shelter who

had disabilities • The application period closed in 2015 and over 370 households have

moved out of shelter to date

FEPS: The Family Eviction Prevention Program (FEPS) continues to be the principal rental assistance program in the community that is available to eligible families with children in receipt of ongoing Cash Assistance who are facing eviction in Housing Court

Human Resources Administration Department of Social Services

Program Participation Incentives

We offer several incentives to encourage landlords and brokers to work with rental assistance programs, including: • $1000 landlord signing bonus (with an additional $1000 for

Veteran households) • Four months rent in advance (second through fourth month

at subsidy level only) • 15% broker fee • Special Supplemental Assistance Fund of up to $3,000 for

landlords to cover potential damage to the apartment, as well as any unpaid rent that cannot be covered by other HRA programs (such as emergency rental assistance and the security voucher)

Human Resources Administration Department of Social Services

Eviction Prevention—Legal Services

The de Blasio administration consolidated existing legal services contracts at HRA and increased funding tenfold, from about $6 million to $62 million.

Building on its already unprecedented commitment, the City will be phasing in an additional $93 million over the next five years to provide universal access to free legal services for tenants facing eviction, harassment and displacement, and other housing-related legal issues.

Human Resources Administration Department of Social Services

Legal Services (Continued) Starting with an additional $15 million allocation in fiscal year 2018, these expanded legal services will, when fully ramped up by 2022: • Provide an extraordinary $155 million in services to curb unlawful

evictions and prevent the displacement of families and individuals—a funding increase of approximately 25 times the amount provided in 2013.

• Serve an estimated 400,000 New Yorkers every year by providing universal access to legal assistance for all tenants facing eviction. Households with incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level will receive full representation, while those earning more will receive legal advice and assistance.

• Continue to actively pursue cases in communities around the city where tenants are most at risk of harassment and displacement, and disseminate information in these communities about available legal services.

Human Resources

Administration Department of Social Services

Other Eviction Prevention Services We do everything we can to prevent vulnerable households from becoming homeless in the first place. Other resources available include: • Emergency Assistance: One-time grants to cover rent arrears and

prevent eviction. In fiscal year 2016, approximately 57,000 households received rent arrears (one shots) with an average grant of $3,600

• HOMEBASE: offers community-based support for households at risk of homelessness. HOMEBASE can help connect New Yorkers to emergency rental assistance, public assistance benefits, education and job-placement services, financial counseling, relocation assistance, and more

Human Resources Administration Department of Social Services

The Future—Streamlining City Rental Assistance Programs

In order to more effectively and efficiently administer City-funded rental assistance programs, HRA will create a single, streamlined program that will build on the success of the existing LINC, SEPS, and CITYFEPS programs.

Human Resources Administration Department of Social Services

Program Information/Register Available Units212-232-0560

929-252-7244

929-221-0045

HRA Rental Assistance Call Center

LINC, SEPS , Home TBRA

929-221-0043

HRA Centralized Rent Processing Unit

FEPS / CITYFEPS

Homelessness Prevention Administration4 World Trade Center

150 Greenwich Street

New York, N.Y. 10007

DHS

929-221-5188

City Rental Assistance Program Contacts

REV 06/6/17

http://www1.nyc.gov/site/dhs/permanency/rental-assistance.page

nyc.gov/homesupportunit

https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dhs/prevention/homebase.page

Home Support Unit

Register Available Units

HRA Landlord Ombudsman Services Unit

Recurring Public Assistance Shelter Allowance

212-835-8189

Homebase

Landlord/Tenant Issues

311

Bruce Jordan became the Chief Homelessness Prevention Officer of HRA in 2014. Bruce is responsible for oversight of the Homelessness Prevention Administration (HPA) which was newly created as part of HRA in 2014. HPA consist of the Office of Housing and Homelessness Services/Initiatives (HHS/I), the Office of Rental Assistance Programs (RAP), the Office of the Civil Justice Coordinator (OCJC), and the Office of Outreach, Rehousing, and Landlord Management (ORL). Bruce began his career at HRA 28 years ago as a Caseworker for the Child Welfare Administration (CWA). Bruce is a graduate of Brandeis University located in Waltham, Massachusetts.

Housing Court Proceedings/Rental Assistance Programs

Charles Wasserman, Esq.

Novick, Edelstein, Lubell, Reisman, Wasserman & Leventhal, P.C

A. First court appearance – settle issues over arrears dispute. Conference case with court attorney, if necessary, to discuss issues/settlement

B. If tenant relies on public assistance for payment of arrears, suggest requesting pamphlet from court listing available agencies

C. Obtain final Judgment for all rent arrears due through date of stipulation, with issuance of warrant (important, because this makes eviction imminent).

I. Nonpayment Summary Proceeding - Stipulation of Settlements

D. Stay execution of warrant for day certain for payment of arrears.

E. Provide rent ledger, with a zero balance, demonstrating how arrears were calculated.

F. Provide a copy of the tenant’s current lease agreement and any preferential rent agreement riders, if not already in tenant’s possession.

I. Nonpayment Summary Proceeding - Stipulation of Settlements

G. Types of Rent Assistance Programs i. One Shot Deal: tenant applies, submits necessary

documents to agency (including, stipulation, rent ledger, proof of income, etc), interviews with agency (BEV appointment), approval or denial issued.

ii. FEPS: rent guidelines must be met and preferential rent often sought. Agency pays arrears and at times agrees to pay a majority (if not all) of the tenant’s rent moving forward for a one-year period.

I. Nonpayment Summary Proceeding - Stipulation of Settlements

A. HRA will pay arrears if one year to stay in writing.

II. Holdover Summary Proceeding – Stipulation of Settlements

A. If there is a dispute in rent due to missing payments from a particular agency, subpoena agency records for front and back of checks for period in dispute

i. i.e., NYCHA, Section 8, HPD, Section 8, HRA, FEPs, Home Base, Catholic Charities

III. Subpoenas

A. Legal Aid/Services can oftentimes assist tenants in submitting rental assistance applications and follow up directly with agency directors

B. Guardian Ad Litem are oftentimes appointed by the courts to aid the elderly or tenants who are incapable of representing themselves in court. They also can accelerate rent assistance applications

i. Landlord may prepare a motion seeking appointment of GAL before case is scheduled in court or court may refer tenant to APS who will then recommend GAL, if necessary

IV. Legal Aids and Guardian Ad Litem

A. Court may grant landlord legal and marshal fees associated with court case. If tenant is receiving public assistance, HRA generally only pays if tenant out of possession. Some charities may help.

V. Eviction

Charles D. Wasserman Partner Novick, Edelstein, Lubell, Reisman, Wasserman & Leventhal P.C. T: (914) 375-0100 Web: www.novickedelstein.com Email: [email protected]

Charles D. Wasserman is a partner of the law firm of Novick, Edelstein, Lubell, Reisman, Wasserman & Leventhal, P.C. The firm litigates housing Court matters in the City of New York, Westchester, Long Island and Rockland County. The firm also handles Non-Payment and Holdover proceedings, Closings and Contracts, Foreclosures, DHCR proceedings, HPD proceedings, 7A proceedings, Bankruptcy, and Supreme Court Litigation. Charles Wasserman graduated from Brooklyn Law School in 1995 and is admitted to the New York State Bar. Mr. Wasserman's area of specialty are Commercial and Residential litigation. Mr. Wasserman is a member of the American Bar Association, New York State Bar Association, and is the Vice President of the Kings County Housing Court Bar Association.

FEPS, FHEPS, HSS

6/7/17

© 2017 The Legal Aid Society All Rights Reserved

What’s in a name?

• Family • Eviction • Prevention • Supplement

LAS FEPS Team

Brooklyn/SI: [email protected] [email protected] Manhattan: [email protected] [email protected] Queens: [email protected] The Bronx: OHaymovits [email protected]

History Lesson

• Jiggetts case brought 1987 • Jiggetts interim relief starts 1992 • 1997 27,000 families in receipt of Jiggetts • 5/1/05-FEPS starts • 4/30/10-Jiggetts ends (600 families) and HSP ends • 12/15 LAS sues again for higher FEPS • 5/17-10,000 families receiving • FHEPS program starts soon • HSS next year??

Checks are Restricted

Direct Vendor: Joe Landlord FR Tenant, Jane

Is your tenant eligible for FEPS?

• CANNOT have:

a. Section 8 regular voucher (sticky ok)

b. Live in NYCHA project apartment c. Receive $300 ACS rent subsidy

FEPS Will Not Pay

• Also cannot request other charges-marshal fees, late charges, parking fees, attorney fees, etc.

• Where someone is evicted City will pay Marshal and attorney fees from special pot of money

• Wrong budgets-OTDA will assume correct; must fix through advocacy or fair hearings

Six Basic Requirements:

1. Receive CA AND have minor child(ren); AND 2. Eviction court case or exception to lawsuit

rule; AND 3. Applicant must be the Tenant of Record and be rent regulated or have a one year

agreement to stay; AND

Basic Rules

4. Subsidy only for person in receipt of CA. 5. Arrears of $7000. 6. No other way to pay arrears or ongoing rent.

FEPS Chart-If All on CA # on PA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Regular Shelter

$277 $283 $400 $450 $501 $524 $546 $546

Supplement

$373 $467 $450 $450 $499 $526 $554 $654

=FEPS $650 $750 $850 $900 $1000 $1050 $1100 $1200

FEPS CHART-RENT CAPS # on CA 1 2 3 4 5 6

Shelter Allowance

$277 $283 $400 $450 $501 $524

FEPS subsidy

$373 $467 $450 $450 $499 $526

Shelter + subsidy= FEPS/m

$650 $750 $850 $900 $1000 $1050

Maximum rent (rent cap)

$800 $900 $1050 $1100 $1250 $1350

FHEPS

Family Homelessness Prevention Supplement

Changes on 6 basic rules

1. CA and child(ren)-same 2. Eviction court case and expanding subgroups

beyond foreclosure and government vacate order

3. TOR expanded to include TOR under 200% of poverty and CA/children roommates with guarantee to stay for a year

4. Supplement still tied to CA/Child case

Basic Rules

5. Arrears will increase a little (finally) 6. No other way to pay-same.

HSS-Proposed Legislation

Home Stability Support

New Proposed Rules

Even better than FEPS and FHEPS Statewide Subsidy for singles, couples and families who receive CA No lawsuit required-verified rent demand One year transitional benefit

Susan C. Bahn has been working in the civil practice of The Legal Aid Society (LAS) in New York City since 1984. She started a career in general civil poverty law at the LAS Queens office. Since 1987 Ms. Bahn has worked in the office that serves Brooklyn and has spent most of her time litigating, training and mentoring on the intersection of housing and public benefits law. In addition to working on the Jiggetts case for 16 years Ms. Bahn has worked on many individual housing and welfare cases and several welfare impact cases including McQueen v. Grinker (1990), Kelly v. Kalladjian (1993), Davila v. Hammons (1996), Brownley v. Doar (2006), Hercules v. Doar (2010), Pena v. Doar (2012), Velez v. Roberts (2015). Ms. Bahn is a graduate of Wellesley College and Hofstra University School of Law where she was an editor on the law review.

The City’s Source of Income Law

Niles Welikson, Esq. Horing, Welikson & Rosen

I. Local Law 10: NYC Administrative Code Sec. 8-107(5)(a)ended in 2008 to provide the following in pertinent part:

A. Local Law 10 was amended in 2008 to provide the following in pertinent part:

“It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice … (1) to refuse to sell, rent, … because of any lawful source of income of such person or persons … or … (3) to declare, print or circulate or cause to be declared, printed or circulated any statement … which expresses, directly or indirectly, any limitation, specification or discrimination as to … any lawful source of income … or any intent to make such limitation, specification or discrimination.” New York City Administrative Code 8-107(5)(a)(1)(3)

I. Local Law 10: NYC Administrative Code Sec. 8-107(5)(a)

B. Local Law 10 defines “lawful source of income” as follows: “The term ‘lawful source of income’ shall include income derived from Social Security, or any form of Federal, State or local public assistance or housing assistance including Section 8 vouchers.” New York City Administrative Code §8-102(25)

C. Remedies: New York City Administrative Code §8-502(a) provides for an aggrieved person to have a cause of action in any court of competent jurisdiction for damages, including punitive damages, and for injunctive relieve and such other remedies as may be appropriate.

II. New York State’s Urstadt Law, McKinney’s Unconsol. Law §8605 (“Urstadt”) provides the following in pertinent part: Law 10 was amended in 2008 to provide the following in pertinent part: A. “…, no local law nor ordinance shall hereafter provide for the regulation

and control of residential rents and eviction in respect of any housing accommodations which are (1) presently exempt from such regulation and control or (2) hereafter decontrolled either by operation of law …” (Emphasis added).

B. Urstadt prevents any attempt by the City to control residential rents and eviction in properties that are exempt from such regulation and control.

C. Urstadt prohibits the City from expanding the scope of residential buildings that are subject to rent regulation and control.

II. New York State’s Urstadt Law, McKinney’s Unconsol. Law §8605 (“Urstadt”) provides the following in pertinent part:

D. Urstadt prohibits the City from expanding the scope of residential buildings that are subject to rent regulation and control.

E. The Urstadt Law limits City attempts to enlarge its regulatory control over landlords. City of New York v. New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, 97 N.Y.2d 216, 739 N.Y.S.2d 333 (Ct. of Appeals 2001). See, Real Estate Board of New York v. City Council of City of New York, 16 Misc.3d 530, 842 N.Y.S.2d 218 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2007)(holding to the extent Local Law 79 required that a tenant’s current rent would be maintained for a limited period of time after the building withdrew from Mitchell-Lama, that provision is in direct conflict with the expressed language of the Urstadt Law and is preempted).

F. Local Law 10 is not, per se, violative of Urstadt.

III. Income Defined

A. Black’s Law Dictionary (10th Ed. 2014) defines “income” as the money or other form of payment that one receives, usually periodically, from employment, business, investments, royalties, gifts, and the like.

1) Social security is “income” under the law since it is not only specified as such but social security is a form of direct payment to a recipient and thus is clearly income. It is also taxable.

2) The statute encompasses Section 8 since this, too, is specified. The wording of the statute does not, however, suggest that any form of housing assistance that is not a type of “income” to a recipient comes within the definition unless the recipient utilizes Section 8 vouchers.

III. Income Defined

B. Statutory Construction 1) The use of the word “or” prior to the phrase “housing assistance

including Section 8 vouchers” demonstrates that the specific category of housing assistance (as distinguished from other “public assistance” included in the first clause in the definition before “or”) is a distinct form of “assistance” under Local Law 10 that stands on its own. As such, Local Law 10 contemplates “housing assistance including Section 8 vouchers.” The clause “including Section 8 vouchers” modifies only “housing assistance” and not the other “public assistance” referred to before the “or.”

New York City Administrative Code §8-102(25).

Separating the following provision from the statute illustrates its restrictive language: “or any form of Federal, State or local public assistance or housing assistance including Section 8 vouchers.”

III. Income Defined 2) The NYC Council Report of the Governmental Affairs Division, Committee

on General Welfare, which is dated March 26, 2008, addressed whether to accept and file then Mayor Bloomberg’s veto message pertaining to Local Law 10. The only housing subsidy program that is specifically mentioned in that lengthy report is Section 8 vouchers. Even the most cursory reading of the report indicates that the Committee’s concern was the large number of tenants dependent upon Section 8 vouchers and the fact that they were having difficulty finding landlords who would voluntarily participate in that program. As noted therein “research suggests, furthermore, that Section 8 holders encounter significant amounts of discrimination from landlords.” In testifying against the bill, Cliff Mulqueen from New York City’s own Human Rights Commission noted that just because an individual refuses to accept a voucher, “that doesn’t necessarily imply a discriminatory animus toward the individual possessing the voucher.” He also noted his concern that the proposed bill would require small housing providers and small buildings to participate in a voluntary program, therefore subjecting them to “the program’s extensive housing quality standards.” All of the foregoing addressed the Section 8 Program.

§ 3:52.Protections against housing discrimination based on..., Residential Landlord...

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1

Residential Landlord Tenant L. in N.Y. § 3:52

Residential Landlord - Tenant Law in New York | December 2016 UpdateAndrew Scherer, Esq.; , Hon. Fern Fisher

Chapter 3. Protections Against Housing DiscriminationII. Protected Categories

§ 3:52. Protections against housing discrimination based on source of income

*** Start Section...SummaryIn 2008, New York City's Human Rights Law was amended to add Administrative Code of the City of New York, §§8-101 et seq., which prohibits landlords from rejecting or discriminating against otherwise eligible tenants or applicantsbased on any “lawful source of income.” Under the amendment, lawful sources of income include, “income derivedfrom social security or any form of federal, state or local public assistance or housing assistance including section 8vouchers.” Denial of sale, rental or leasing of any housing accommodation on basis of lawful income constitutes unlawfuldiscrimination as does advertising or listing housing units as unavailable to recipients of public assistance. The statute wasmade applicable to tenants in residence, as well as potential tenants. See, Matter of Rizutti v. Hazel Towers, 04/02/2008N.Y.L.J. 27, col. 1 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co.). The statute does not apply to housing accommodations that contain five orfewer housing units, except for units that are subject to rent control. See also Tapia v. Successful Management Corp.,79 A.D.3d 422, 915 N.Y.S.2d 19 (1st Dep't 2010) (Local Law 10 applies to existing tenants, as well as to applicants forapartments; landlord is also bound by receipt of J-51 tax abatement to accept Section 8 vouchers; Local Law 10 is notpreempted by federal law). See Choudhury v. Ramtahal, 9 WL 1916469, (Table, Text in WESTLAW), 2009 N.Y. SlipOp. 51423(U), 6/3/2009 N.Y.L.J. 28 (col.1) (Civ.Ct. Kings Co.) (affirming that the statute does not apply because theproperty in question only has four units).

Examples

 • Stipulation vacated because landlord failed to accept Section 8 voucher, in violation of Local Law 10 prohibition ofsource of income discrimination, then sued for full rent. 667 E. 187th St. v. Walker, NYLJ, 4/22/2009, p.27, col. 3.

 • The Appellate Division, First Department, held that landlord's defenses in Local Law 10 case were “pretextual”where landlord claimed that it need not accept tenant's Section 8 voucher because she had a studio voucher andlived in a one-bedroom apartment. Jones v. Park Front Apartments, LLC, 73 A.D.3d 612, 901 N.Y.S.2d 46 (1stDep't 2010).

 • “Defendant's refusal to complete the lead paint disclosure form required by the New York City Housing Authorityto process plaintiff's Section 8 voucher constitutes a refusal to accept plaintiff's Section 8 benefits and, therefore, aviolation of the anti-discrimination provisions of the J-51 tax abatement law (Administrative Code of the City ofNew York § 11-243[k]) and the New York City Human Rights Law (Administrative Code § 8-107[5][1]-[2]) (Tapiav. Successful Mgt. Corp., 79 AD3d 422, 2010 N.Y. Slip Op 08860 [2010]; Kosoglyadov v. 3130 Brighton Seventh,LLC, 54 AD3d 822 [2008]).” Rakhman v. Alco Realty I, L.P., 81 A.D.3d 424, 916 N.Y.S.2d 581 (1st Dep't 2011).

 • Landlord defenses were a pretext for discriminating against plaintiffs based on their proffer of Section 8 vouchers.Tapia v. Successful Management Corp., 31 Misc. 3d 1236(A), 932 N.Y.S.2d 763 (Sup 2011).

Westlaw. © 2016 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

§ 3:52.Protections against housing discrimination based on..., Residential Landlord...

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2

End of Document © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. GovernmentWorks.

...

Florentino v. Nokit Realty Corp., 29 Misc.3d 190 (2010)

906 N.Y.S.2d 689, 2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 20274

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1

29 Misc.3d 190Supreme Court, New York County, New York.

Severina FLORENTINO andMaria Cabrera, Plaintiffs,

v.NOKIT REALTY CORPORATION, Orwell

Management and Spode Realty LLC, Defendants.

May 27, 2010.

*** Start Section...

SynopsisBackground: Tenant filed action seeking injunctionordering landlord to accept tenant's Section 8 rent subsidyvoucher for her rent-stabilized, two-bedroom apartmentand declaring that landlord's refusal to accept voucherviolated city's administrative code, otherwise knownas Local Law 10, prohibiting discrimination againsttenants based on their lawful source of income, andseeking award of compensatory damages. Landlord filedthird-party complaint against New York City HousingAuthority (NYCHA). Landlord and tenant cross-movedfor summary judgment, and NYCHA moved to dismissfor failure to state cause of action.

[Holding:] The Supreme Court, New York County, PaulWooten, J., held that landlord's refusal to accept tenant'sSection 8 voucher constituted discrimination under locallaw.

Motions by plaintiff and third-party defendant granted.

Attorneys and Law Firms

**690 Venable LLP, New York City, Attorney forPlaintiff.

Gale Feldman, Esq., New York City, Attorney forDefendant.

Opinion

PAUL WOOTEN, J.

*191 This is an action by plaintiff Severina Florentino(“plaintiff”) for an injunction ordering her landlordto accept a Section 8 rent subsidy voucher for hercurrent two-bedroom rental apartment. DefendantsNokit Realty Corporation and Orwell Management(collectively “defendants”) are, respectively, the building's

owner and property manager. 1 Plaintiff alleges that**691 defendants' refusal to accept her Section 8 benefits

violates sections 8–107(5)(a)(1), 8–107(5)(a)(2) and 8–107(5)(c)(1) of the Administrative Code of the City ofNew York (“Administrative Code” or “Local Law 10”),which prohibits landlords from discriminating againsttenants based on their lawful source of income. Defendantshave filed a third-party complaint against New York CityHousing Authority (“NYCHA”), and NYCHA has notyet answered. The Note of Issue has not been filed.

Presently before the Court are three motions, which willbe construed as cross-motions. First, plaintiff moves forsummary judgment, pursuant to CPLR 3212, declaringthat defendants violated Local Law 10 and ordering themto accept her Section 8 voucher for her current apartment,and awarding compensatory damages from the month inwhich the voucher was issued through the month of itsacceptance by defendants. Second, defendants move forsummary judgment, pursuant to CPLR 3212, dismissingthe complaint for failure to establish a Local Law 10violation, or, alternatively, directing plaintiff to accepta studio apartment instead of the two-bedroom, ordirecting NYCHA to (1) amend the Section 8 voucherand Housing Assistance Payment Contract (“HAP”) toaccurately reflect the size of plaintiff's current apartment;(2) hold defendants harmless from liability for anymisrepresentations they certify as accurate in executingthe Section 8 voucher and HAP; or (3) withdraw theSection 8 voucher and HAP. Third, NYCHA moves todismiss the third-party complaint, pursuant to 3211, forfailure to state a cause of action.

*192 BACKGROUND

In support of her motion, plaintiff submits, inter alia,her own affidavit, the Section 8 voucher, and theHAP. Defendants submit, inter alia, affidavits of SimonHaberman and Marco Pichardo, and letters betweenLegal Aid and defendants' counsel. NYCHA submits,inter alia, the affidavit of Gregory A. Kern, and a

Florentino v. Nokit Realty Corp., 29 Misc.3d 190 (2010)

906 N.Y.S.2d 689, 2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 20274

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2

NYCHA policy memorandum. The relevant undisputedfacts are as follows.

Plaintiff is a sixty year-old single woman who residesin a two-bedroom rent-stabilized apartment at 601 West174th Street No. 5H. She has lived in the apartment forover 15 years, and last renewed her lease on January 2,2009. The building contains at least six residential units.Plaintiff's current monthly rent is $989.38, but she receivesa Disability Rent Increase Exemption lowering her rentto $843.25. Her only source of monthly income is $781.00in Social Security Income and Social Security Disabilitybenefits.

According to plaintiff's affidavit, she currently residesalone and does not rent out her second bedroom.Members of her immediate family have resided with herin the past, but they have not lived in her apartmentfor several years. She has also occasionally had visitingfamily members stay with her briefly as guests. She deniessubletting her apartment or receiving rental income fromanyone staying there.

In March 2008, plaintiff applied for Section 8 assistancewith the United States Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment (“HUD”) to help meet her monthly rentobligations. On July 8, 2008, she received a Section 8voucher, administered by NYCHA, for a rent subsidy inthe amount of $1,095.00. The face of the voucher indicatedthat her rent subsidy corresponded to a unit containingzero bedrooms.

On December 15, 2008, Simon Haberman, one ofdefendants' principals, received **692 a letter from LegalAid regarding plaintiff's Section 8 eligibility. Defendantsadvised Legal Aid that plaintiff's Section 8 voucherauthorized benefits for a studio apartment only, andthat her current apartment was ineligible for the benefitsprovided by the voucher as it was a two-bedroom.

Plaintiff commenced the present action on March 5, 2009,alleging that defendants improperly refused to apply herSection 8 voucher to her current two-bedroom apartment,in violation of Local Law 10. She seeks an injunctionordering defendants to *193 accept the voucher andto execute all necessary related documentation within 10days, as well as an award of compensatory damages.

Defendants deny discriminating against plaintiff and haveoffered her a studio apartment in the same building,which they claim complies with the Section 8 voucher.Defendants also allege that the Section 8 voucher andHAP require them to certify certain items regardingplaintiff's apartment, including the number of bedroomsand the identity of the occupants. They claim that theycannot truthfully certify the apartment's size becauseit contains two bedrooms, not zero bedrooms. Theyalso claim that the voucher requires occupancy solelyby plaintiff and her immediate family, and they submitan affidavit from the building's superintendent, MarcoPichardo, stating that he observed unrelated roommatesliving there. Defendants additionally claim that the HAPprovides for liability and monetary penalties in the eventof an owner's breach of the contract, and that they cannotknowingly certify a voucher and HAP containing materialmisrepresentations.

Defendants brought a third-party complaint againstNYCHA on November 13, 2009, alleging that the Section8 voucher and HAP require them to misrepresent thenumber of bedrooms in plaintiff's apartment and toconceal rental income she receives from roommates, andto thereby perpetuate a fraud upon NYCHA and HUDand expose themselves to possible penalties. They seekan injunction ordering NYCHA to either withdraw thevoucher on grounds of alleged fraud regarding room sizeand number of occupants, or directing plaintiff to acceptthe studio apartment.

NYCHA has submitted an affidavit from Gregory A.Kern, a NYCHA manager responsible for the Section8 program, disputing defendant's claims regarding thealleged certification requirements. According to Kern,NYCHA policy and federal regulations allow plaintiff touse her Section 8 voucher for a two-bedroom apartmentwith a rent of either $989.38 or $843.25. Kern also notesthat the HAP does not require defendants to certifythe size of plaintiff's apartment or anything concerningher income. Although the HAP forbids plaintiff frompermitting anyone else to live in the apartment withoutprior approval of NYCHA and the landlord, if defendantssuspect that plaintiff is subletting the apartment orhiding income, they can report such concerns directly toNYCHA which will investigate and make a determinationconcerning plaintiff's continued eligibility for Section 8assistance.

Florentino v. Nokit Realty Corp., 29 Misc.3d 190 (2010)

906 N.Y.S.2d 689, 2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 20274

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3

*194 DISCUSSIONPlaintiff moves for summary judgment declaring thatdefendants violated Local Law 10 by refusing to accept herSection 8 voucher, and ordering defendants to accept hervoucher for her current two-bedroom apartment. She alsorequests an award of compensatory damages, representingthe difference between her monthly rental obligations andwhat she would have paid from the month in which thevoucher was issued through the month of its acceptanceby defendants.

**693 Defendants, in turn, seek summary judgmentdismissing the complaint for failure to establish a LocalLaw 10 violation. Defendants claim that they refused tohonor the voucher because it required them to falselyand fraudulently certify that plaintiff occupies a studioapartment, and to conceal income that she purportedlyreceives from subletting. They also allege that theyare exposed to potential liability and penalties for anymisrepresentations in the voucher and HAP. In thealternative, defendants request an order directing plaintiffto accept the studio apartment, or ordering NYCHAto (1) amend the voucher and HAP to reflect a two-bedroom; (2) hold defendants harmless from liabilityfor any misrepresentations they certify as accurate inexecuting the voucher and HAP; or (3) withdraw thevoucher and HAP.

NYCHA moves to dismiss the third-party complaint forfailure to state a cause of action, on the grounds thatdefendants failed to serve or plead service of a statutorily-required notice of claim prior to commencing the third-party action, and, in any event, that defendants' claim thatplaintiff cannot use her Section 8 voucher for her two-bedroom apartment lacks merit.

A. Standards Of Review[1] [2] [3] Summary judgment is a drastic remedy that

should be granted only if no triable issues of fact existand the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law(see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572 [1986]; Andre v. Pomeroy,35 N.Y.2d 361, 364, 362 N.Y.S.2d 131, 320 N.E.2d 853[1974] ). The party moving for summary judgment mustmake a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment asa matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence in admissibleform demonstrating the absence of material issues of fact(see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d

851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642 [1985]; CPLR3212[b] ). A failure to make...

*** Start Section...n, take the allegations of the complaint as true andprovide plaintiff the benefit of every possible inference”(EBC I, Inc. v. Goldman, **694 Sachs & Co., 5 N.Y.3d11, 19, 799 N.Y.S.2d 170, 832 N.E.2d 26 [2005]; seealso Gorelik v. Mount Sinai Hosp. Ctr., 19 A.D.3d 319,319, 797 N.Y.S.2d 497 [1st Dept. 2005] ). “The motionmust be denied if from the pleadings' four corners factualallegations are discerned which taken together manifestany cause of action cognizable at law' ” (511 West 232ndOwners Corp. v. Jennifer Realty Co., 98 N.Y.2d 144,152, 746 N.Y.S.2d 131, 773 N.E.2d 496 [2002], quotingPolonetsky v. Better Homes Depot, 97 N.Y.2d 46, 54, 735N.Y.S.2d 479, 760 N.E.2d 1274 [2001] ).

B. The Cross–Motions For Summary Judgment UnderLocal Law 10The Section 8 program was established by federal law(42 USC § 1437f) to provide rent subsidies to lowerincome families “to enable them to obtain decent, safe andsanitary housing in the private sector” (Malek v. Franco,263 A.D.2d 427, 428, 693 N.Y.S.2d 584 [1st Dept. 1999];see also Fair v. Finkel, 284 A.D.2d 126, 127, 727 N.Y.S.2d401 [1st Dept. 2001] ). Under Section 8, a participatingtenant makes rental payments based on financial abilityand the local housing authority, in this case NYCHA,issues subsidy payments to the landlord to cover thebalance. Once NYCHA issues a Section 8 voucher, theparticipating landlord and NYCHA enter into a contractknown as a HAP, pursuant to which NYCHA will paya portion of the tenant's rent (see Rosario v. DiagonalRealty, LLC, 8 N.Y.3d 755, 760–61, 840 N.Y.S.2d 748,872 N.E.2d 860 [2007]; Tapia v. *196 Successful Mgmt.Corp., 24 Misc.3d 1222(A), 2009 WL 2163595, *1 n. 1[Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2009] ).

On March 26, 2008, the New York City Council passedLocal Law 10, an amendment to the Human RightsLaw, designed to ban discrimination by landlords againsttenants based on their lawful source of income, includingSection 8 vouchers (see Rakhman v. Alco Realty I, L.P.,27 Misc.3d 1142, 900 N.Y.S.2d 603 [Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co.2010]; Timkovsky v. 56 Bennett, LLC, 23 Misc.3d 997,1000, 881 N.Y.S.2d 823 [N.Y. Co. 2009]; Tapia, 2009WL 2163595, *3; 667 East 187th St. L.L.C. v. Walker, 23

Florentino v. Nokit Realty Corp., 29 Misc.3d 190 (2010)

906 N.Y.S.2d 689, 2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 20274

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4

Misc.3d 1118(A), 2009 WL 1153294, *1 [Civ. Ct. N.Y.City 2009] ).

Pursuant to Local Law 10, it is an unlawful discriminatorypractice for a landlord or manager to refuse to “sell, rent,lease, approve the sale, rental or lease or otherwise deny toor withhold from any person or group of persons such ahousing accommodation or an interest therein ... becauseof any lawful source of income” (Administrative Code §8–107[5][a][1] ). Local Law 10 also makes it unlawful todiscriminate against any person “because of any lawfulsource of income of such person ... in the terms, conditions,or privileges of the ... sale, rental or lease of any suchhousing accommodation or an interest therein” (id. at §8–107[5][a][2] ). In addition, real estate brokers may notrefuse to lease housing accommodations “to any personor group of persons” based on “any lawful source ofincome” (id. at § 8–107 [5] [c][1] ). The term “lawful sourceof income” is expressly defined to include income derivedfrom the use of Section 8 vouchers (id. at § 8–102 [25] ). Thecourts have consistently held that a landlord's refusal toaccept a legitimate Section 8 voucher constitutes unlawfuldiscrimination under Local Law 10 (see Timkovsky, 23Misc.3d at 1004, 881 N.Y.S.2d 823 [Local Law 10 is“violated when a landlord refuses to accept a Section 8voucher”]; 667 East 187th, 2009 WL 1153294, *1 [“AfterMarch 26, 2008 ... [a] landlord of a building with sixor more units, would not be able to decline payment bySection 8 voucher without running afoul of Local Law10”] ).

**695 [10] Here, plaintiff has established a prima facieclaim that defendants violated Local Law 10 by refusingto accept her Section 8 voucher for her current two-bedroom apartment (see Tapia, 2009 WL 2163595, *6[granting summary judgment declaring that Local Law10 prohibited the defendants from refusing to acceptSection 8 benefits, and directing them to accept theplaintiffs' Section 8 vouchers and to execute all documentsnecessary to effectuate acceptance within 10 days]; *197Timkovsky, 23 Misc.3d at 1004, 881 N.Y.S.2d 823; 667East 187th, 2009 WL 1153294, *2).

Defendants do not dispute that Local Law 10 barsdiscrimination against plaintiff based on her receipt ofSection 8 benefits. Instead, their defense is that theyrefused to accept plaintiff's Section 8 voucher because todo so would require them to make false certifications inthe voucher and HAP. They argue that plaintiff's voucher

is for a studio apartment and that she currently resides in atwo-bedroom, thus requiring them to execute documentsfraudulently certifying the size of her apartment. Thisprecise argument, however, was expressly rejected in Jonesv. Park Front Apartments, LLC, Sup. Ct., N.Y. Co., April27, 2009, Smith, J., index No. 402878/2008.

The landlord in Jones, similar to here, refused to accept aSection 8 voucher from an indigent 78 year-old disabledwoman who had resided in her apartment for 16 years.The landlord claimed that the voucher applied only toa studio apartment, and that it would be forced toexecute documents fraudulently certifying the apartment'ssize since the plaintiff actually lived in a one-bedroom.In granting preliminary injunctive relief ordering thelandlord to accept the Section 8 payments and to completethe HAP, the court ruled:

“Equally disingenuous, is defendant landlord's rejectionof plaintiff's voucher for fear that they will be somehowcommitting a fraud by accepting a voucher issued fora studio apartment, knowing that at present plaintiffoccupies a one bedroom apartment .... [T]he onlydocument the landlord is required to sign is the ...[HAP] contract, which merely requires the landlord tospecify the particular unit for which the Public HousingAuthority and the landlord are bound.... There is norequirement that the landlord verify the number ofbedrooms in the apartment rented by the tenant. Thecase relied on by defendant landlord, Esther Keyes v.285 Hawthorne Realty LLC, Case No 10122173, inwhich the New York State...*** Start Section..., and that the refusal by the landlord to do so didnot constitute discrimination is not applicable here asthere is no proof in any admissible form presentedby defendant landlord that defendant was required to*198 sign any document in the instant case which

would have constituted a fraud on its part. The HAPcontract ... does not requires such information” (id. at2–3) (emphasis added).

Jones is equally applicable to the present case (id.).Moreover, the federal regulations indicate that thevoucher may be applied to plaintiff's two-bedroom (see 24CFR § 982.402[d][2] [“The family may lease an otherwiseacceptable dwelling unit with more bedrooms than thefamily unit size”).

Florentino v. Nokit Realty Corp., 29 Misc.3d 190 (2010)

906 N.Y.S.2d 689, 2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 20274

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 5

Defendants also contend that accepting the voucherwould require them to conceal rental income that plaintiffpurportedly receives from subletting her second bedroomto roommates. Even though there is a factual disputeregarding whether plaintiff **696 sublets her apartment,defendants cannot refuse to accept the Section 8 voucherbecause they allege that she sublets to roommates. Theundisputed evidence establishes that NYCHA, not thelandlord, has the authority to determine the applicabilityof a Section 8 voucher.

Therefore, based on their assertions, defendants havefailed to raise an issue of fact sufficient to defeat plaintiff'ssummary judgment motion, or to establish their ownentitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissingthe complaint (see Kosoglyadov v. 3130 Brighton Seventh,LLC, 54 A.D.3d 822, 824, 863 N.Y.S.2d 777 [2d Dept.2008]; Timkovsky, 23 Misc.3d at 1004, 881 N.Y.S.2d 823).

Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is granted,as defendants' refusal to accept her Section 8 voucherviolates Local Law 10 (see Tapia, 2009 WL 2163595,*6). Defendants are directed to accept plaintiff's Section 8voucher for her current two-bedroom apartment, and toexecute all documents necessary to effectuate acceptancewithin 10 days. Plaintiff is also awarded compensatorydamages in an amount to be determined by a SpecialReferee (see Kosoglyadov, 54 A.D.3d at 824, 863 N.Y.S.2d777). Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment isdenied.

C. NYCHA's Motion to DismissNYCHA moves to dismiss the third-party complaint onthe basis that defendants failed to comply with PublicHousing Law § 157(1), because they did not file a notice ofclaim prior to commencing the third-party action or pleadthat they had done so. NYCHA also argues that the third-party complaint has no legal merit because, accordingto NYCHA policy and federal regulations, plaintiff isentitled to use her Section 8 voucher for her current two-bedroom apartment and cannot be forced to accept astudio, and the HAP does not require defendants to makeany *199 representations about the size of plaintiff's

apartment or her income. 2

[11] Pursuant to Public Housing Law § 157(1), in everyaction against a public housing authority, other than acondemnation proceeding, the complaint must allege that

“at least thirty days have elapsed since the demand, claimor claims upon which such action ... is founded werepresented to the authority for adjustment and that it hasneglected or refused to make an adjustment or paymentthereof for thirty days after such presentment.” A failureto comply with the notice and pleading requirements ofsection 157(1) may result in dismissal of the complaint (seeKovachevich v. New York City Hous. Auth., 295 A.D.2d255, 255, 744 N.Y.S.2d 28 [1st Dept. 2002]; Leon v. NewYork City Hous. Auth., 214 A.D.2d 455, 455, 625 N.Y.S.2d212 [1st Dept. 1995]; Reaves v. City of New York, 177A.D.2d 437, 437, 576 N.Y.S.2d 280 [1st Dept. 1991]; TrioBronx Inc. v. Hernandez, 2009 WL 3612135 [Sup. Ct. N.Y.Co. 2009] ).

Defendants do not dispute that they failed to properlyserve or plead service of a notice of claim as required bysection 157(1). Rather, defendants assert that they werenot required to file a notice of claim because the statuteonly applies to tort or contract actions where monetarydamages are demanded of a public authority, and theiraction requests NYCHA to construe its own regulationsunder the Section 8 program. Defendants also contendthat NYCHA is a necessary party because it has theexclusive ability to clarify what defendants were requiredto certify on the Section 8 voucher and HAP.

**697 NYCHA's motion to dismiss the third-partycomplaint is granted. Although defendants argue thatsection 157(1) is inapplicable, they cite to no legalauthority exempting them from the notice and pleadingrequirements under the present circumstances (seeKovachevich, 295 A.D.2d at 255, 744 N.Y.S.2d 28). In anyevent, the Court need not decide whether section 157(1)applies in this case because, even had defendants compliedwith the statute, dismissal is nonetheless warranted asthe third-party complaint fails to state a viable cause ofaction (see Gorelik, 19 A.D.3d at 319–20, 797 N.Y.S.2d497 [dismissal is warranted absent any viable claims). Inopposition to NYCHA's motion, defendants again arguethat if they honor the voucher they will be required tomake fraudulent misrepresentations regarding the sizeof plaintiff's apartment and household composition. TheCourt has already rejected *200 these arguments andgranted summary judgment ordering defendants to acceptthe voucher. Furthermore, NYCHA has demonstratedthat, pursuant to its own policies and federal regulations,plaintiff is allowed to use her voucher for a two-bedroom

Florentino v. Nokit Realty Corp., 29 Misc.3d 190 (2010)

906 N.Y.S.2d 689, 2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 20274

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 6

apartment, and that defendants are not required to certifythe size of her apartment or source of income.

For these reasons and upon the foregoing papers, it is,

ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECLARED thatplaintiff's motion for summary judgment is grantedas follows: (1) Local Law 10 prohibits defendantsNokit Realty Corporation and Orwell Managementfrom refusing to honor plaintiff's Section 8 voucher; (2)defendants are directed to accept plaintiff's Section 8voucher for her current two-bedroom apartment, and toexecute all documents necessary to effectuate acceptanceof the voucher within 10 days after service of a copy of thisOrder with Notice of Entry; and (3) plaintiff is awardedcompensatory damages in an amount to be determined bya Special Referee; and it is further,

ORDERED that defendants' motion for summaryjudgment is denied; and it is further,

ORDERED that third-party defendant NYCHA'smotion to dismiss the third-party complaint is granted;and it is further,

ORDERED that this matter is set down for an inquestbefore a Special Referee to hear and determine all issuesrelating the award of compensatory damages to plaintiff;and it is further,

ORDERED that not later than June 11, 2010, plaintiffshall serve a...

Rakhman v. Alco Realty I, L.P., 81 A.D.3d 424 (2011)

916 N.Y.S.2d 581, 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 00574

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1

81 A.D.3d 424Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

First Department, New York.

Eduard RAKHMAN, et al., Plaintiffs,Angel Rivas, Plaintiff–Respondent,

v.ALCO REALTY I, L.P., et al., Defendants,

One More Time Realty Corp., Defendant–Appellant.

Feb. 1, 2011.

SynopsisBackground: Tenant sued landlord for declaratory andinjunctive relief, seeking, inter alia, to enjoin landlord toaccept his Section 8 subsidy and execute all necessarydocuments, declare that tenant's rent was reduced to hisrent contribution under Section 8 housing program untillandlord began receiving tenant's Section 8 subsidies, andto enjoin landlord to refund all moneys collected in excessof tenant's contribution under Section 8 subsidy as ofcertain date. The Supreme Court, New York County,Debra A. James, J., 27 Misc.3d 1142, 900 N.Y.S.2d 603,granted tenant's motion for summary judgment on hisclaims for declaratory and injunctive relief. Landlordappealed.

[Holding:] The Supreme Court, Appellate Division,held that landlord's refusal to complete lead paintdisclosure form required to process tenant's Section 8voucher violated anti-discrimination provisions of localtax abatement and human rights laws.

Affirmed.

Attorneys and Law Firms

**582 Jacob Rabinowitz, New York, for appellant.

Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York (ScottA. Rosenberg of counsel), and Patterson Kelknap Webb& Tyler LLP, New York (Claude S. Platton of counsel),for respondent.

ANDRIAS, J.P., SWEENY, MOSKOWITZ,DeGRASSE, ABDUS–SALAAM, JJ.

Opinion*424 Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra

A. James, J.), entered April 5, 2010, which, to the extentappealed from, granted plaintiff Angel Rivas's motion forsummary judgment on his causes of action for declaratoryand injunctive relief, inter alia, enjoining defendant OneMore Time Realty Corp. to accept plaintiff's Section 8subsidy and execute all necessary documents, including alead paint disclosure form, declaring that plaintiff's rentis reduced to his rent contribution under the Section 8program until defendant starts receiving plaintiff's Section8 subsidies, and enjoining defendant to refund all moneyscollected in excess of plaintiff's contribution under theSection 8 subsidy as of December 2008, unanimouslyaffirmed, with costs.

[1] [2] [3] Defendant's refusal to complete the leadpaint disclosure form required by the New York CityHousing Authority to process plaintiff's Section 8 voucherconstitutes a refusal to accept plaintiff's Section 8benefits and, therefore, a violation of the *425 anti-discrimination provisions of the J–51 tax abatement law(Administrative Code of the City of New York § 11–243[k] ) and the New York City Human Rights Law(Administrative Code § 8–107[5][1]–[2] ) (see tapia v.succESsful mgt. Corp., 79 a.d.3D 422, 915 n.y.s.2D 19[2010]; Kosoglyadov v. 3130 Brighton Seventh, LLC, 54A.D.3d 822, 863 N.Y.S.2d 777 [2008] ). Defendant'sexplanation that it satisfied its one-time obligation tosubmit a lead paint disclosure certification when plaintifffirst moved into the building in 1997, pursuant to 24CFR 35.88 and 35.92, is unavailing, since satisfactionof federal requirements does not except defendant fromstate law requirements (see Rosario v. Diagonal Realty,LLC, 8 N.Y.3d 755, 764 n. 5, 872 N.E.2d 860 [2007],cert. denied 552 U.S. 1141, 128 S.Ct. 1069, 169 L.Ed.2d808 [2008]; Tapia, 79 A.D.3d at 424–425, 915 N.Y.S.2d19 Kosoglyadov, 54 A.D.3d at 824, 863 N.Y.S.2d 777).We find defendant's explanation to be a pretextual excusefor its unwillingness to accept plaintiff's Section 8 benefits(see Jones v. Park Front Apts., LLC, 73 A.D.3d 612, 612–613, 901 N.Y.S.2d 46 [2010] ). The court correctly foundthat plaintiff would have been eligible for the benefits butfor the missing lead paint disclosure form, and properlygranted the relief sought (see Kosoglyadov, 54 A.D.3d at824, 863 N.Y.S.2d 777).

Defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved and inany event without merit.

Rakhman v. Alco Realty I, L.P., 81 A.D.3d 424 (2011)

916 N.Y.S.2d 581, 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 00574

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2

All Citations

81 A.D.3d 424, 916 N.Y.S.2d 581, 2011 N.Y. Slip Op.00574

End of Document © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Tapia v Successful Mgt. Corp., 79 A.D.3d 422 (2010)

915 N.Y.S.2d 19, 2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 08860

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1

79 A.D.3d 422, 915 N.Y.S.2d19, 2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 08860

**1 Ramona Tapia et al.,Respondents, et al., Plaintiffs

vSuccessful Management Corp. et al., Appellants, etal., Defendants. Vladimir Dreytser et al., Plaintiffs,

and Aleksandr Flisfeder et al., Respondents, v195 Realty, LLC, et al., Defendants, and West

187th Street Properties, Inc., et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,First Department, New York

December 2, 2010

CITE TITLE AS: Tapia v Successful Mgt. Corp.

HEADNOTES

Landlord and TenantRentLandlord's Refusal to Accept Federal Rent Subsidy

Antidiscrimination clauses of J-51 law (AdministrativeCode of City of NY § 11-243 [k]) and Local Law No. 10(2008) of City of New York (Administrative Code of Cityof NY § 8-107 [5]) prohibited defendant landlords fromrefusing to accept Section 8 benefits from plaintiffs; plainlanguage of J-51 law prohibits landlord receiving J-51tax benefits from directly or indirectly denying dwellingaccommodation or any of the privileges or servicesincident thereto to any person because of their use of,participation in, or eligibility for governmentally fundedhousing assistance program, including Section 8 housingvoucher program; similarly, plain language of Local Law10 prohibits discrimination against any person or groupof persons by virtue of their lawful source of income,which would include Section 8 vouchers; neither statutedistinguishes between current and prospective tenantsor excludes tenants whose leases do not require theirlandlords to accept Section 8 benefits.

StatutesFederal Preemption

Rent Regulation—Local Antidiscrimination Laws NotPreempted by Section 8 Program

Local Law No. 10 (2008) of City of New York wasnot preempted by federal law; Section 8 program,while voluntary in nature, did not preempt localantidiscrimination laws; furthermore, 1998 amendmentsto Section 8 program, which permitted landlords to optout of program after expiration of tenants' leases, did notpreempt either rent stabilization law provision requiringleases to be renewed upon same terms and conditionsas expiring leases, or J-51 (Administrative Code of Cityof NY § 11-243) antidiscrimination clause prohibitinglandlords from discriminating against tenants who receiveSection 8 assistance; same reasoning applies to Local Law10, as it is also antidiscrimination law providing many ofsame protections as J-51.

Landlord and TenantRent RegulationUrstadt Law—Scope

Local Law No. 10 (2008) of City of New York does notviolate Urstadt Law (L 1971, ch 372, as amended by L1971, ch 1012 [McKinney's Uncons Laws of NY § 8605]),which was intended to prohibit attempts, whether by locallaw or regulation, to expand set of buildings subject to rentcontrol or stabilization; defendant landlords' acceptanceof plaintiffs' Section 8 vouchers would have no impact inexpanding buildings subject to the Rent Stabilization Lawor expanding regulation under rent laws, and thus wouldnot offend objective of Urstadt Law.

Horing Welikson & Rosen, P.C., Williston Park (Niles C.Welikson of counsel), for appellants.Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York (RobertDesir of counsel), for Ramona Tapia and Mariya Koltunin action 1, and Aleksandr Flisfeder and Khana Mostovain action 2, respondents.Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York(Aaron M. Bloom of counsel), for municipal respondents.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (MarcyS. Friedman, J.), entered August 12, 2009, as clarifiedby orders, same court and Justice, entered on orabout January 29, 2010, granting plaintiffs' motion for

Tapia v Successful Mgt. Corp., 79 A.D.3d 422 (2010)

915 N.Y.S.2d 19, 2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 08860

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2

declaratory and injunctive relief to the extent of declaringthat the antidiscrimination clauses of the *423 J-51law and Local Law No. 10 (2008) of the City ofNew York prohibit defendant landlords **2 SuccessfulManagement, Arbern 315 Ocean Parkway, West 187thStreet Properties and 1347 Ocean (appellants) fromrefusing to accept “Section 8” benefits from plaintiffs,and directing them to accept plaintiffs' Section 8 vouchersand execute all related documents to effectuate theiracceptance, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs, longtime tenants in rent-stabilized buildingswho were recently approved for Section 8 benefitsunder 42 USC § 1437f and seek to use Section 8vouchers to pay a portion of their rent, are protectedby the J-51 antidiscrimination statute and Local Law10 (Administrative Code of City of NY § 11-243[k]; § 8-107 [5]; Kosoglyadov v 3130 Brighton Seventh,LLC, 54 AD3d 822 [2008]; see also Jones v ParkFront Apts., LLC, 73 AD3d 612 [2010]). The plainlanguage of the J-51 law prohibits a landlord receivingJ-51 tax benefits from “directly or indirectly” denyinga dwelling accommodation “or any of the privilegesor services incident” thereto “to any person becauseof . . . [his or her] use of, participation in, or beingeligible for a governmentally funded housing assistanceprogram, including . . . the section 8 housing voucherprogram” (Administrative Code § 11-243 [k] [emphasisadded]). Contrary to appellants' claim, the language doesnot distinguish between current and prospective tenants.Nor does the statute exclude tenants whose leases do notrequire their landlords to accept Section 8 benefits.

Similarly, the plain language of Local Law 10prohibits discrimination against “any person or groupof persons” by virtue of their “lawful source ofincome” (Administrative Code § 8-107 [5] [a] [1], [2]),which would include Section 8 vouchers. As with the J-51statute, the language does not distinguish between currentand prospective tenants. Nor does the statute excludetenants whose leases do not require their landlords toaccept Section 8 benefits. Accordingly, a plain reading ofthe statute does not support appellants' contention that itwas only intended to protect prospective tenants or thosewith leases specifically permitting rental payments to bemade with Section 8 benefits (see Timkovsky v 56 Bennett,LLC, 23 Misc 3d 997, 1001 [2009]).

Appellants' interpretation of these statutes lacks any basisin the text of the law and also makes no practical sense.As the motion court noted, under such interpretation, alandlord could refuse to accept the Section 8 voucher ofan existing tenant, but would have to accept it if the tenantvacated the apartment and then moved back in. Such areading would have to be rejected as leading to absurdresults (see id.). *424

Appellants claim it is not discriminatory to refuse toaccept Section 8 benefits from current tenants becausethey are not refusing to give these tenants a lease.However, it is discriminatory to “refus[e] to accept themeans of payment proffered by [these tenants] solelybecause those means are obtained through a federalhousing program” (Kosoglyadov, 54 AD3d at 824; see alsoCosmopolitan Assoc., L.L.C. v Fuentes, 11 Misc 3d 37 [AppTerm 2006]). Indeed, appellants' refusal to accept Section8 subsidies constitutes discrimination because it compelsa tenant who wants to “use” a voucher or “participate” inthe Section 8 program to seek housing elsewhere.

Even though the Section 8 program is voluntary,“state and local law may properly provide additionalprotections for recipients of section 8 rent subsidieseven if those protections could limit an owner's abilityto refuse to participate in the otherwise voluntaryprogram” (Kosoglyadov, 54 AD3d at 824).

In support of their position, appellants selectively citevarious documents related to Local Law 10's legislativehistory. However, these selective citations are unavailingand ignore the preamble to Local Law 10, which sets forththe legislative intent: “Legislative Intent. The Councilhereby finds that some landlords refuse to offer availableunits because of the source of income tenants, includingcurrent tenants, plan to use to pay the rent. In particular,studies have shown that landlords discriminate againstholders of section 8 vouchers because of prejudices theyhold about voucher holders. This bill would make it illegalto discriminate on that basis.” (See **3 Local Law 10 §1 [emphasis added]; Administrative Code § 8-101.)

Local Law 10 is not preempted by federal law. Indeed,in Mother Zion Tenant Assn. v Donovan (55 AD3d 333,336-337 [2008], lv dismissed in part and denied in part11 NY3d 915 [2009]), this Court recognized that theSection 8 program, while voluntary in nature, did notpreempt local antidiscrimination laws. Furthermore, in

Tapia v Successful Mgt. Corp., 79 A.D.3d 422 (2010)

915 N.Y.S.2d 19, 2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 08860

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3

Rosario v Diagonal Realty, LLC (8 NY3d 755 [2007],cert denied 552 US 1141 [2008]), the Court of Appealsheld that the 1998 amendments to the Section 8 program,which permitted landlords to opt out of the programafter expiration of tenants' leases, did not preempt eitherthe rent stabilization law provision requiring leases to berenewed upon the same terms and conditions as expiringleases, or the J-51 antidiscrimination clause prohibitinglandlords from discriminating against tenants who receiveSection 8 assistance (id. at 764 n 5; see also Kosoglyadov, 54AD3d at 824). While the issue in Rosario and Kosoglyadovwas the J-51 law, the same reasoning applies to Local Law10, as it is also an antidiscrimination *425 law providingmany of the same protections as J-51 (see Timkovsky, 23Misc 3d at 1006 n 12).

Nor does Local Law 10 violate the Urstadt Law (L 1971,ch 372, as amended by L 1971, ch 1012 [McKinney's

Uncons Laws of NY § 8605]), which was intended toprohibit attempts, whether by local law or regulation,to expand the set of buildings subject to rent control orstabilization (see City of New York v New York StateDiv. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 97 NY2d 216, 227[2001]). As the motion court succinctly noted, appellants'“acceptance of plaintiffs' Section 8 vouchers will haveno impact in expanding the buildings subject to therent stabilization law or expanding regulation under therent laws, and thus does not offend the objective of theUrstadt Law.” Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, DeGrasse,Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ. [Prior Case History:24 Misc 3d 1222(A), 2009 NY Slip Op 51552(U).]

Copr. (C) 2017, Secretary of State, State of New York

End of Document © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

New York City Housing Authority Leased Housing Department

RSA Presentation

Cathy Pennington, Exec VP Robert Tesoriero, Director

June 7, 2017

Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) Program Section 8 is a federally-funded program that provides rental assistance to eligible low income families to find decent, safe and

affordable housing in the private rental market.

NYCHA serves over 85,000 voucher holders across the city of which 73% have incomes <30% of AMI.

2

Funding Outlook: What We Know

On May 5, the President signed a bill that funds the government through the rest of the year.

3

Funding Outlook: What We Don’t Know

President released a budget for 2018, but…

4

Congress still has to agree up on and pass a budget.

Chair’s Statement on President’s FY18 Budget

"The Trump Administration's devastating budget is an assault on public housing and affordable housing as we know it in this City. For the 1 in 14 New Yorkers who call NYCHA home, the proposed rent increase will mean that families barely making ends meet, as it is, will be forced to choose between putting food on the table and paying the rent. These cuts to HUD would strip nearly every dollar from public housing infrastructure and threaten our day-to-day operations. We will vigorously fight any and all cuts that jeopardize the future of New York City’s Housing Authority."

5

6

VAWA

7

8

HQS Inspections

9

Most Common HQS Failures

Improperly Installed Electrical Outlets

Exposed Wires/Missing Fuses (24 hour violations)

Ceilings/Walls Paint or Plaster Peeling, Water Damage

Inoperable Stoves & Refrigerators

Lack of Heat & Hot Water

HQS Violations Upon notification of HQS violations, a Certification of

Repairs Completed (NE-2) can be submitted to NYCHA in person, mail or the Owner Extranet.

₋ NE-2 certs must be signed (tenant & owner) ₋ Work order tickets can be accepted w/o tenant signature

but must be scanned with NE-2 cert for processing ₋ Owner signed NE-2 cert must be submitted for no access

cases Note: All 24 hour HQS violations must be re-inspected

11

NE-1PS Certification of Completed Repairs

NE-2 Certification of Completed

Repairs

NYCHA will commence tenant termination action immediately upon receipt of the following documents: • NE-2 Cert with box checked “No Tenant Access” • Copy of certified letter to tenant requesting access for repairs Note: Suspension of subsidy remains until the repairs are confirmed by NYCHA. Retro will be approved on a case by case basis.

Tenant No Access For Repairs Policy

Owner checks the “no tenant access” box on NE-2 cert

and provides NYCHA a copy of

the certified letter to the tenant

• No tenant signatures or work orders

• 24 hour violation (must re-inspect)

• Fraudulent Signatures

• Section 8 Case Inactive

• Tenant Transferred to New Apt

NE-2 Certification Rejection Reasons

Q & A

16

Cathy Pennington Executive Vice President for Leased Housing for Section 8 New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) WEB: http://www1.nyc.gov/site/nycha/index.page

Cathy Pennington was appointed Executive Vice President for Leased Housing in March 2013. She is responsible for all Section 8 voucher and other operations in the Leased Housing Department, which administers NYCHA’s federally funded Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) Program. NYCHA’s Section 8 Program, the largest in the nation, provides rental subsidies for over 232,000 Section 8 tenants who rent private housing apartments from more than 30,000 landlords in the five boroughs, or apartments at one of NYCHA’s 21 city- and state-built developments.

Prior to joining NYCHA, Ms. Pennington most recently led the Section 8 Program for the Newark Housing Authority and prior to that for the Chicago Housing Authority, both while employed at Quadel Consulting Corporation. While employed at the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority, in Cleveland, Ohio, she served as Director of the Housing Choice Voucher Program. Ms. Pennington went on to serve as Deputy Executive Director for the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority, the sixth largest in the nation. Ms. Pennington’s public and affordable housing experience also includes serving for nine years as Director of Housing and Family Services at the Cleveland Housing Network, Inc., where her responsibilities included administrative oversight of all facets of property management.

Ms. Pennington holds a Bachelor of Social Work degree from Cleveland State University, and a Master in Social Science Administration degree from Case Western Reserve University. She is presently serving as a Board Member of the National Leased Housing Association and has served as a Board Member of numerous professional and affordable housing organizations.

Robert Tesoriero

Director, Leased Housing Inspections & Central Office Operations

New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) WEB: http://www1.nyc.gov/site/nycha/index.page

Robert Tesoriero has been employed with the New York City Housing for over 26 years. He was

promoted to the position of Leased Housing Department Director for Inspections and Central

Office Operations in February 2015. In this capacity, Mr. Tesoriero is responsible for overseeing

Section 8 Inspections, Fraud & Abuse, Project Based, Portability and the Landlord Outreach Unit.

NYCHA runs the largest Section 8 program of its kind in the country. The Section 8 program

provides federally-funded rent subsidy payments for approximately 210,000 low-income Section

8 tenants to 28,300 private participating property owners.

Mr. Tesoriero joined NYCHA in 1990 as a Housing Assistant conducting citywide Section 8 HQS

inspections. He has amassed over 26 years’ experience in various aspects of NYCHA’s Section 8

Housing Choice Voucher Program. He was promoted through the ranks as a Manager, Assistant

Director and Deputy Director prior to his present position.

Mr. Tesoriero holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Communications from St. Francis College. He is

also currently a member of the citywide Veterans Task Force Executive Committee.

NYCLA & RSA Seminar: HPD’s Section 8 Program

To help protect your privacy, PowerPoint has blocked automatic download of this picture.

June 7, 2017

HPD’s Section 8 Program

2

At the New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development (HPD) rental subsidy programs are administered by the Division of Tenant Resources (DTR) Presently 40,000 households are assisted About 9,000 owners are participating

HPD administers rental subsidies through the following programs:

Regular HCV “Section 8” PBV VASH Enhanced vouchers Mod Rehab Mod SRO Continuum of Care (SPC)

3

What is rent reasonableness? A federally required market-based assessment of whether or not the owner’s

proposed rent is reasonable when compared to the rents for similar unassisted apartments in the housing market.

How is a rent reasonableness determination made? HPD reviews information on comparables that are obtained through the website:

www.GoSection8.com Additionally HPD will review legal rent registrations, regulatory agreements, etc. to

determine if any rent restrictions apply to the assisted unit that are more restrictive than the rent that has been requested and determined reasonable.

Rent Reasonableness

Rent Increase Request Deadlines & Communication

4

Deadlines Rent Increase requests must be submitted to HPD 60 days prior to the

effective date of the increase. If requests are received by HPD after this date, the approved effective date will

be the next 1st or 15th of the month that is at lease 60 days in the future. HPD does accept deemed leases with affidavits for rent stabilized tenants.

If a rent increase is rejected for any reason, you have 30 days to address the issue and resubmit the request and retain the original submission date.

Communication You will receive written notice of approval of the requested rent. If the request is rejected for any reason, you will receive written notice of

this decision and the reason for the decision. Tenants may not pay any additional rent than that listed on the rent

breakdown letter from HPD.

Housing Quality Standards (HQS) Inspections

5

HQS inspections are required prior to leasing a unit with subsidy and at least once every other year during the tenancy.

HQS inspections are conducted by HPD’s Division of Code Enforcement. The apartment, public areas and heating

system must all meet HQS requirements. The most common non-emergency HQS failures are due to:

Missing or broken smoke detector(s) Missing electrical outlet covers Defective windows (no window stops or broken balances)

The full HQS Checklist may be viewed at: https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=DOC_11775.pdf

HQS Failures & HMC Violations Notification

6

In addition to issuing HQS failures, Code Enforcement may also issue violations of the Housing Maintenance Code (HMC) & Multiple Dwelling Law (MDL). Failures and violations have distinct correction timeframes. Owners will receive notice of HQS failures and HMC/MDL violations in one

package for each apartment and one package for any public area violations or failures.

Owner notification is mailed to the managing agent listed on HPD’s Property Registration. Owners can confirm that they are registered or find out how to register by:

Visiting nyc.gov/hpd and using HPD’s Property Registration Online System (PROS) Calling (212) 863-7300 or Sending an e-mail to [email protected].

HQS Certification & Correction of Failures

7

Non-emergency HQS failures that are the Owner’s responsibility to correct have a 30 day Certification of Correction deadline. If a violation is linked to an HQS failure, the condition must be

corrected & certified as corrected by the HQS deadline in order to avoid HAP abatement.

Random verification inspections of certified corrected failure items are conducted within 30 days of certification and if it fails, a retroactive HAP abatement may be placed.

HQS failures located in the public area of the building will be linked to all units inspected during the time period that the failure remains open. HPD will stop (abate) HAP payments to the owner if HQS failures are not certified

as corrected by the HQS Certification of Correction deadline listed on the notice. Abatement notices are mailed to the owner contact listed on the HAP contract. If the tenant fails to allow access to the owner to make repairs, the owner must

document attempts to gain access via certified mail. HAP payments will be reinstated when all owner-responsibility failures are closed

(certified or pass re-inspection).

DTR Partner Portal

8

The Partner Portal allows owners and managers to view up to date information about HPD assisted properties.

To request enrollment please send an email to [email protected] with the address of the HPD subsidized property. For more information User guides and FAQs are available.

HPD strongly encourages owners to enroll in Electronic Fund Transfer (EFT) in order to avoid check fees and receive payments quicker. Owner can register directly by going to www.nyc.gov/EFT

9

Website: www.nyc.gov/hpd DTR Partner Portal To request enrollment, email your request with the assisted

address [email protected]

Phone number: (917) 286-4300 Please listen to the menu and follow the prompts to reach the

appropriate unit to assist you.

Email for Landlords: [email protected]; [email protected]

Office hours are Monday through Friday from 9am-4pm Assistance available to non-English speakers through bilingual staff,

interpreters, and the “Language Line”

Contact & Resources

Program Overview Presentation

1 06/07/2017 SCRIE/DRIE Presentation @

NYCLA/RSA Seminar

Be at least 62 years old at the time of submitting the application

Live in a rent regulated apartment (rent stabilized/rent controlled/rent demand)

Must be named on the lease or rent order Combined household income cannot exceed

$50,000/year Spend more than 1/3 of the combined

monthly household income in rent

2

Be at least 18 years old at the time of submitting the application

Live in a rent regulated apartment (rent stabilized/rent controlled/rent demand/Mitchell-Lama)

Must be named on the lease or rent order Combined household income cannot exceed

$50,000/year Spend more than 1/3 of the combined

monthly household income in rent

3

Tenants apply for SCRIE or DRIE and provide supporting documentations to establish eligibility.

Property owners or their managing agents are notified by mail of all approvals, changes to the tax abatement credit (TAC) within the benefit period, or termination of benefit (revocations).

4

Landord Express Access Portal (LEAP) Frequently Asked Questions Glossary of Terms Rent Guidelines Board Calculator Tool Sample Rental Documents Forms Helpful Links

LEAP Registered Users Tenants’ benefit status Customized tax abatement credit reports Online Property Change Forms Document uploads

5

If a tenant has moved to a new rent regulated apartment, the benefit can be transferred by filing an Apartment Benefit Transfer application

If a tenant moves to a more expensive apartment then the frozen rent will increase as only the exemption (tax abatement credit) is transferred

If a tenant moves to an apartment where the rent is less than the frozen rent in the original apartment, then they do not qualify for a benefit transfer and must reapply as a new applicant

If a tenant moves to a non-rent regulated apartment then they do not qualify for a transfer

6

What happens when the primary benefit recipient dies? The benefit is revoked the first of the month following the date of death Eligible household members has the opportunity to file for a benefit

takeover Benefit Takeover application should be filed the later of two

dates: (1) 6 months from the date of death of the primary benefit recipient (2) 90 days from the date of a revocation notice from DOF

Applicant must have been a named household member on the last renewal application

Basic eligibility proof is required such as: proof of date of birth (SCRIE), proof of federal qualifying disability (DRIE), and proof of income

Proof of succession rights Letter from landlord acknowledging succession rights Lease with applicant named as primary lessee DHCR order granting landlord provide succession rights Court stipulation granting succession rights

7

General Information: Rent Freeze Website:

http://www1.nyc.gov/site/rentfreeze/index.page A Program Guide for general program information to help you to

answer general questions : http://www1.nyc.gov/site/rentfreeze/index.page

Contact Us options for inquiries: By sending us a message at: nyc.gov/contactscrie or

nyc.gov/contactdrie By Visiting: SCRIE/DRIE Walk-In Center at 66 John Street,

3rd Floor, New York, NY 10038. (Monday through Friday 8:30am-4:30pm)

By Telephone: Call 311 or 212-NEWYORK-if you are outside of the 5 boroughs

8

9

10

The NYC Landlord Express Access Portal (NYC LEAP) has officially launched on September 13, 2016! NYC LEAP Provides: A one-stop shop for all websites associated with SCRIE and DRIE benefits Access to information about the borough/block/lot(s) (BBLs) you currently

own/manage The ability to upload documents to DOF to assist with a determination Access to custom Tax Abatement Credit (TAC) reports A Rent Guidelines Board (RGB) calculator to assist with upcoming rent

increases Access to an online Property Change form All forms associated with SCRIE-DRIE benefits

Signing up is easy as 1,2,3!

1. Visit: http://www1.nyc.gov/site/finance/benefits/nycleap.page 2. Log In using an NYCID or social media login 3. Fill out the registration page

You will get a confirmation email once your registration is approved by DOF

Need help using LEAP?

Visit: nyc.gov/contactleap

The NYC LEAP User Guide is available for download

Pierre Dejean is the Assistant Commissioner of NYC City Department of Finance’s (DOF) Property Exemptions Administration (PEA). He oversees the administration of all of the NYC property tax abatement and exemption programs for renters, property owners, commercial and Not-for Profit entities. This includes giving tax abatement credits to landlords that have tenants that participate in the rent freeze program. Pierre holds a Bachelor’s degree in Business Administration from Hofstra University and a Jurist Doctorate Law Degree from Albany Law School of Union University.

Bibi Parmar is the Director of the NYC Rent Freeze Programs at the New York City Department of Finance (DOF). In this capacity, she oversees a property tax benefit that freezes the rent for approximately 65,000 tenants who are seniors and people with disabilities. Bibi is responsible for operational oversight and processing of Rent Freeze applications. She ensures that applications are processed fairly and efficiently, and that both program participants and landlords receive the information and support that they need. Bibi holds a Bachelor of Science in Nutritional Science and Public Health from Cornell University and a Masters of Public Administration from CUNY Baruch College.