Termination of Rent Subsidy Too Harsh a Penalty

HPD terminated tenant's rent subsidy because tenant failed to include her minor son's disability payments in her 2004 application for an enhanced rent subsidy or in her 2006 income recertification application. Tenant appealed, claiming that HPD's decision was arbitrary and unreasonable. The court ruled against tenant. Tenant appealed, and the appeals court ruled for tenant in part. HPD correctly found that tenant intentionally failed to disclose her son's disability benefits. But the penalty of terminating tenant's rent subsidy was "shockingly" disprorportionate to the offense, since it would probably lead to homelessness. Tenant had lived in the apartment for 25 years and had three minor children, including one who was disabled. The omission of the son's income had no effect on the amount of rent subsidy tenant received. The court warned tenant that repeated misrepresentations could be grounds for terminating the subsidy even absent harm to HPD. But the case was sent back to HPD to determine a lesser penalty.

Davis v. HPD: NYLJ, 1/8/09, p. 34, col. 4 (App. Div. 1 Dept.; Saxe, JP, Nardelli, Buckley, Moskowitz, Renwick, JJ)