Maldonado v. Crotona Place W. Hous. Dev.

• Decision Date: 17 January 2019
• Docket Number: 8134,Index 250739/15
• Citation: 92 N.Y.S.3d 218,168 A.D.3d 524
• Parties: In re Diamond MALDONADO, Petitioner–Appellant, v. CROTONA PLACE WEST HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, et al., Respondents–Respondents. Professor Paris R. Baldacci, Amicus Curiae
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

168 A.D.3d 524

92 N.Y.S.3d 218

In re Diamond MALDONADO, Petitioner–Appellant,

v. CROTONA PLACE WEST HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, et al., Respondents–Respondents.Professor Paris R. Baldacci, Amicus Curiae

8134

Index 250739/15

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

ENTERED: JANUARY 17, 2019

Marshall Green, The Legal Aid Society, Bronx (Matthew Tropp of counsel), and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Washington, DC (Laurence Tai of the bar of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and District of Columbia, admitted pro hac vice of counsel), for appellant.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Lorenzo Di Silvio of counsel), for respondent.

Paris R. Baldacci, New York, amicus curiae pro se.

Renwick, J.P., Manzanet–Daniels, Gische, Mazzarelli, Kahn, JJ.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard H. Sherman, J.), entered May 4, 2017, denying the petition to annul a determination of respondent Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), dated January 6, 2015, which denied petitioner's request for reinstatement of Section 8 subsidy benefits and an informal hearing, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the determination annulled, the Section 8 voucher reinstated retroactive to date of termination, and the matter remanded for an informal hearing.

The twenty-five-year-old petitioner grew up with her mother in a housing development located in the Bronx where the family received a rent subsidy under the Housing Choice Voucher program administered by respondent City of New York Department of Housing Preservation & Development (HPD). After her mother died in September 2014, HPD terminated the voucher on the ground that petitioner's mother was the sole household member and denied petitioner an informal hearing. Petitioner claims that she had lived continuously in the apartment her entire life and was unaware the mother made efforts to remove her from the household.

The record reveals that, in 2013, the mother submitted a request to remove petitioner from the household (RRHM), including a "self-certification" countersigned by a HPD staff member that the mother did not know petitioner's whereabouts and therefore could not provide a new address. HPD subsequently added petitioner back to the household after it was unable to verify that she had left the household. The mother then submitted a second RRHM, and when HPD rejected the request for lack of proof that petitioner was no longer a household member, the mother simply submitted the same self-certification that HPD had previously found insufficient. In February 2014, the mother submitted the annual recertification and omitted petitioner. Based on the mother's report, the landlord, Crotona Place West Housing Development (CPW), also submitted a form letter to HPD stating that the mother was the sole household member.

In the meantime, HPD continued to receive printouts from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) during this period, which indicated that there was no change in family composition, other than the brother's removal from the household to foster care. Significantly, a printout dated May 27, 2014 — several months after the mother's submission of the annual recertification — indicated that petitioner remained an active member of the household and was receiving benefits.

Under these circumstances, we agree with petitioner that HPD's...