HPD's Revocation of Tenant's Subsidy Was Too Severe a Penalty

June 27, 2016

LVT Number: #27068

HPD terminated tenant’s Section 8 rent subsidy because tenant misrepresented his family composition. HPD ordered that the tenancy was terminated. Tenant filed an Article 78 appeal, claiming that HPD’s decision was arbitrary and unreasonable. The court ruled for tenant. Although tenant clearly misrepresented the household composition, the penalty was too severe. Tenant acknowledged that his granddaughter didn’t reside with him at least 51 percent of the time, but she did stay with tenant weekends and when her terminally ill mother was in the hospital.

HPD terminated tenant’s Section 8 rent subsidy because tenant misrepresented his family composition. HPD ordered that the tenancy was terminated. Tenant filed an Article 78 appeal, claiming that HPD’s decision was arbitrary and unreasonable. The court ruled for tenant. Although tenant clearly misrepresented the household composition, the penalty was too severe. Tenant acknowledged that his granddaughter didn’t reside with him at least 51 percent of the time, but she did stay with tenant weekends and when her terminally ill mother was in the hospital. Tenant was 71 years old, had decreased mobility and insufficient income to cover an unsubsidized rent. The case was sent back to HPD to impose a lesser penalty.

 

 
Adamson v. HPD: 2016 NY Slip Op 03953, 2016 WL 2904863 (App. Div. 1 Dept.; 5/19/16; Sweeny, JP, Renwick, Andrias, Kapnick, Kahn, JJ)

Topics

More like this