433 West Associates v. Murdock
| Decision Date | 19 October 2000 |
| Citation | 276 A.D.2d 360,715 N.Y.S.2d 6 |
| Parties | 433 WEST ASSOCIATES, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>CAROLYN MURDOCK, Appellant, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
The holdover petition failed to plead that it and the predicate termination notice were served on the New York City Housing Authority, as required by Federal consent decree and regulation (Williams v New York City Hous. Auth., 81 Civ 1801 [SD NY 1995]; 24 CFR 982.310 [e] [2] [ii]) in order to regain possession of a Federally subsidized, so-called "section 8" housing (42 USC § 1437f), and also failed to plead the tenancy's section 8 status, as required by RPAPL 741 (see, Homestead Equities v Washington, 176 Misc 2d 459, 462 [Civ Ct, Kings County]). While the foregoing requirements were "essential elements" to the landlord's prima facie case (Jennie Realty Co. v Sandberg, 125 Misc 2d 28, 29 [App Term, 1st Dept]), and, accordingly, noncompliance therewith constituted defenses to the holdover petition (see, Homestead Equities v Washington, supra; cf., Chinatown Apts. v Chu Cho Lam, 51 NY2d 786), such defenses did not implicate the court's subject matter jurisdiction (see generally, Jackson v New York City Hous. Auth., 88 Misc 2d 121 [App Term, 1st Dept]; cf., 170 W. 85th St. Tenants Assn. v Cruz, 173 AD2d 338), and therefore could be waived (cf., Priel v Priel, NYLJ, Mar. 5, 1993, at 25, col 3 [App Term, 1st Dept]; Mehta v Karrow, NYLJ, Apr. 8, 1993, at 23, col 4 [App Term, 1st Dept]; 2785 Ocean Parkway Assoc. v Stern, NYLJ, Jan. 11, 1995, at 31, col 4 [Civ Ct, Kings County]). The competence of Civil Court to hear a holdover proceeding against a section 8 tenant is not derived from the Williams consent decree or Federal regulation but from CCA 110 (Matter of Committed Community Assocs. v Croswell, 250 AD2d 845).
The tenant twice waived these defenses based on the landlord's noncompliance with the Federal regulatory scheme, first in a stipulation that expressly recognized the landlord's prima facie case, and again when she did not appeal the judgment of possession. Even if an appellate court on an appeal from the judgment of possession would have entertained such defenses for the first time on appeal by reason of the prohibition against opting out in the Williams consent decree, it remains that the tenant did not take an appeal, and the resulting finality should not be disturbed absent the existence of grounds under CPLR 5015 (see, 2785 Ocean Parkway Assoc. v Stern, supra).
Similar considerations apply to the tenant's claim that the landlord accepted a section 8 subsidy for the apartment covering a period that fell between termination of the tenancy and commencement of the holdover proceeding. If such acceptance of rent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Metro Plaza Apartments, Inc. v. Buchanan
...1144, 61 N.Y.S.3d 204 [2017], lv dismissed 30 N.Y.3d 1084, 69 N.Y.S.3d 851, 92 N.E.3d 1241 [2018] ; see 433 W. Assoc. v. Murdock, 276 A.D.2d 360, 360–361, 715 N.Y.S.2d 6 [2000] ; see also Ledezma v. Laredo Housing Auth., 2021 WL 1199043, *5–7, 2021 Tex App LEXIS 2439 [Ct. App. Tx., Mar. 31,......
-
Burden as trustee of Burden Irr[ev]ocable Trust v. Glenridge Mews Condo
...85th Street Tenants Ass'n v. Cruz , 173 A.D.2d 338, 339, 569 N.Y.S.2d 705 [1st Dept. 1991] ; see also 433 West Assocs. v. Murdock , 276 A.D.2d 360, 360-361, 715 N.Y.S.2d 6 [1st Dept. 2000] ; 716 Realty, LLC v. Zadik , 38 Misc. 3d 139[A], 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 50194[U], 2013 WL 530380 [App. Ter......
-
Rahman v. Lewis
...of the predicate notice to NYCHA. That the mailings of the predicate notice were addressed to NYCHA's offices in Manhattan on the 9th floor at 90 Church Street, rather the 11th floor at that same address, is a de minimus deviation from the instructions on NYCHA's website for service of lega......
-
Clinton-178 Towers LLC v. Chapple
...because they involve defective pleadings and/or tenants with NYCHA Section 8 subsidies. For example, in 433 West Assocs v. Murdock, 276 A.D.2d 360, 360, 715 N.Y.S.2d 6, 7–8 (1st Dep't 2000), a holdover proceeding against a tenant with a NYCHA Section 8 subsidy, the court noted that the peti......