Jones v. Park Front Apartments LLC, Index No. 402878/2008
| Decision Date | 04 May 2009 |
| Docket Number | Index No. 402878/2008,MOTION SEQ. NO. 01 |
| Citation | 2009 NY Slip Op 33241 |
| Parties | VICTORIA JONES Plaintiff, v. PARK FRONT APARTMENTS, LLC; RICHARD MORALE, as Acting Chairmen of the New York City Housing Authority and the NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY. Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Decision and Order
Plaintiff, an indigent 78 year old disabled woman, who has resided in her current apartment for sixteen years, and in the building for thirty-eight years, sues for a declaratory judgment requiring her landlord, defendant Park Front Apartments, LLC ("Park Front" or "defendant landlord" or "landlord"), to accept her Section 8 federal rent subsidy and to execute all necessary related documents, claiming that they arc precluded from rejecting said subsidy pursuant to 1) the "Use Agreement" between defendant landlord and the Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") (the federal agency who administers the Section 8 program); 2) the J-51 tax abatement program (through which defendant Park Front received tax benefits), which precludes any landlord who has received such benefits from discriminating against persons who receive Section 8 rent subsidies, 3) New York City Human Rights Law, Sections 8-101 and 8-102(25) of the Administrative Code, which similarly bans discrimination against tenants based on receipt of Section 8 benefits, and 4) Local Law 10, Sections 8-107(5)(a)(l) and (2), and (c)(1) of the Administrative Code which make it unlawful to refuse to rent to, or to discriminate against, persons in housing accommodations because of any lawful source of income, including Section 8 vouchers. Plaintiff, in her complaint, also seeks payment of compensatory damages representing all rent paid by plaintiff in excess of her Section 8 share of the rent.
In the instant motion, plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction enjoining defendant landlord from prosecuting its non payment proceeding it commenced against plaintiff in Housing Court, Park Front Apts., LLC v. Victoria Jones, Index No. 83401/2008, and ordering defendant Ricardo Morales, in his capacity as Acting Chairman of the New York City Housing Authority ("NYCHA"), to extend the expiration date of plaintiff's Section 8 voucher #0590155 for 60 days after the conclusion of the action. Plaintiff also seeks a preliminary injunction requiring defendant landlord to accept plaintiff's portion of the rent without prejudice, during the pendency of this action, to execute the documents required to enable plaintiff to receive Section 8 benefits, and to accept the Section 8 benefits without prejudice for the pendency of this action.
Defendant landlord does not dispute that the various provisions in the Administrative Code cited by plaintiff, bar discrimination against tenants based on their receipt of Section 8 benefits (see paragraph 6 of the Affirmation of Meryl L. Wenig, Esq., in opposition to the instant motion). Instead, defendant landlord claims that it has refused to accept plaintiff;s Section 8 voucher on two grounds-1) that as the Section 8 voucher which plaintiff received from NYCHA in October 2007 was for a studio apartment and plaintiff currently resides in a one bedroom apartment, the landlord would be forced to execute documents, fraudulently certifying that plaintiff currently resides in a studio apartment when the landlord knows that plaintiff resides in a one bedroom apartment, and 2) defendant landlord is concerned that by accepting plaintiff's voucher, it would be violating the Section 8 policy barring it from charging its Section 8 tenants disparate increases because plaintiff has been required by HUD to pay an annual increase in excess of what other Section 8 recipients pay, for failing to disclose income received from other family members residing with her some years ago (who no longer reside with her).
It defies logic that the agency responsible for administering the Section 8 program, who made a determination that despite plaintiff's failure to fully disclose the income she received while receiving the benefits, she could remain in the program as long as the increases in her annual rent was...
To continue reading
Request your trial