Alliance Hous. II Assocs. v. George, L & T 019458/2014

• Decision Date: 03 August 2015
• Docket Number: L & T 019458/2014
• Citation: 14 N.Y.S.3d 670,49 Misc.3d 883,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 25268
• Parties: ALLIANCE HOUSING II ASSOCIATES, Petitioner–Landlord, v. Rosilyn GEORGE, Respondent–Tenant.
• Court: New York Civil Court

49 Misc.3d 883
14 N.Y.S.3d 670
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 25268

ALLIANCE HOUSING II ASSOCIATES, Petitioner–Landlord
v.
Rosilyn GEORGE, Respondent–Tenant.

L & T 019458/2014

Civil Court, City of New York, Bronx County.

Aug. 3, 2015.

14 N.Y.S.3d 672

Ed Baldinucci, Esq., Gutman, Mintz, Baker & Sonnenfeldt, P.C., New Hyde Park, N.Y.

Carolyn M. Norton, Esq., Legal Services NYC, Bronx, Bronx, N.Y.

Opinion

JAVIER E. VARGAS, J.

Upon the foregoing papers and for the following reasons,

49 Misc.3d 884

the motion by Respondent Rosilyn George (“Tenant”) for, inter alia, leave to file an Amended Answer and for vacatur of Stipulations of Settlement in the instant nonpayment proceeding, is granted, and the matter is hereby adjourned for further proceedings.

For over thirty-three years, Tenant has resided in the subject Project-based Section 8 subsidized U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) building, known as 1105–25 Anderson Avenue, Apt. BC, in the Bronx, New York, and managed by Petitioner Alliance Housing II Associates (“Landlord”). To benefit from the Section 8 Program, Tenant has been required to recertify each year to confirm her continuous eligibility for her lower subsidized rent, which is calculated based on her family's composition and income. Tenant currently resides with her adult son, Anthony George, and their sole source of income is Public Assistance from the New York Human Resources Administration (“HRA”), which income yielded a rent share for her of only $122 out of the $1,243 rent per month as of her last recertification of March 1, 2012. It appears, however, that Tenant, who is a homebound senior-citizen

49 Misc.3d 885

with severe depressive episodes, failed to recertify her eligibility for the year 2013.

As a result, on February 20, 2014, Landlord served upon Tenant a “Ten–Day Notice to Federally Subsidized Tenant for Material Non–Compliance of the Lease, Pursuant to HUD Regulations and Concurrent Demand for Rent,” alleging that her tenancy will be terminated for her failure to make timely rent payments, then amounting to $13,432 owed between March 2013 and February 2014 at a monthly rent of $1,243, which amount had to be paid within ten days, on March 4, 2014, under penalty of the commencement of an eviction proceeding. Tenant failed to pay that amount, prompting Landlord's commencement of the instant nonpayment proceeding against her, by Notice of Petition and Petition filed March 31, 2014, to recover possession of the Premises, rent arrears of over $14,553, and reasonable costs and legal fees, alleging that Tenant has failed to timely pay her arrears. Relevantly, Landlord described the Building regulatory status as “subject to Rent Stabilization Law and the rent does not exceed the lawfully stabilized rent permitted under the Law. The Apartment is now subject to the Omnibus Housing Act of 1983 and is registered with [N.Y. State Division of Housing and Community Renewal] DHCR.”

By Answer dated April 11, 2014, Tenant's son, Anthony George, answered the Petition generally denying most of the allegations therein and stating that “the

14 N.Y.S.3d 673

rent, or a part of the rent, has already been paid to the [Landlord].” Despite the Answer, on the appearance date of April 22, 2014, neither Tenant nor her son appeared and a default Final Judgment of Possession (Kullas, J.) was entered in favor of the Landlord and against her in the total sum of $14,553.

By Order to Show Cause dated June 25, 2014, Tenant moved for vacatur of her default and Final Judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015. On the return date of the motion of July 11, 2014, and following a description of Tenant's advanced age and depression, the Housing Court (Breier, J.) referred Tenant for an evaluation by Adult Protective Services (“APS”) and appointed Della Dekay, Esq. as her Guardian ad Litem (“GAL”), while adjourning the matter for all purposes to August 13, 2014, and then to September 18, 2014. On that date, the parties agreed with the permission of the GAL, by so-ordered Stipulation of Settlement (Pinckney, J.), to afford Tenant until October 18, 2014 to pay rent arrears then amounting to $22,011.

Unfortunately, no payment was made and a Warrant of Eviction followed, prompting the GAL to move, by Order to Show

49 Misc.3d 886

Cause dated November 6, 2014, for a stay of the execution of the warrant, claiming that Tenant was securing the reinstatement of her Section 8 benefits and applying for a One–Shot Deal loan from HRA. By Stipulation of Settlement dated November 21, 2014, the parties agreed to further give Tenant until December 12, 2014 to pay arrears then amounting to $24,497. Following two further Orders to Show Cause and over Landlord's written opposition, the Court (Pinckney, J.), by Short Form Orders dated January 16, 2015 and March 12, 2015, respectively, granted Tenant further extensions of time until March 31, 2015 to pay arrears of $28,129.

However, by Short Form Order dated April 21, 2015, this Court denied Tenant's subsequent Order to Show Cause, following reports that she had not cooperated with the GAL, despite her continuous efforts, nor completed any application for help with HRA or any other agency. According to the GAL, although Tenant and her son will start the application process with her assistance, they would inevitably fail to cooperate with her or further the application process along by attending appointments, or providing necessary documents to complete it. Another Order to Show Cause followed on April 30, 2015, wherein Tenant's son moved for a further extension of the Warrant of Eviction on the grounds that he was working with BronxWorks to resolve their housing crisis, and that Tenant had been admitted...