Tompkins Square Neighbors, Inc. v. Zaragoza
| Decision Date | 08 December 1971 |
| Citation | 68 Misc.2d 103,326 N.Y.S.2d 665 |
| Parties | TOMPKINS SQUARE NEIGHBORS, INC., Petitioner, v. Ramon ZARAGOZA and Carmen Zaragoza, Respondents. Term, Part 51 |
| Court | New York City Court |
Whitehorn & Delman, New York City, for petitioner.
Bernard Hanft, New York City, for respondents.
This is a holdover summary proceeding for possession of an apartment located in Haven Plaza, a middle-income housing project sponsored by Tompkins Square Neighbors, Inc., a redevelopment company organized under Article V of the Private Housing Finance Law (the 'Redevelopment Companies Law'). The tenants entered into possession about 14 years ago and there have been a succession of annual lease renewals until this year. The last lease expired on September 30, 1971 and the landlord has not renewed the lease because of numerous complaints against the tenants' son.
The tenants have moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution were violated: 'Since the landlord is a government aided and a government regulated project, the landlord cannot deprive (tenants) of (their) right to continue to occupy the apartment herein without due process, i.e., written charges and a hearing.' It is conceded that if this landlord be adjudged a 'private' landlord and there is no lease, it may terminate the tenancy at its will. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Carroll, 43 Misc.2d 639, 251 N.Y.S.2d 693 (App. Term, 1st Dept. 1964).
The issue is simple: Does a tenant in a 'private' redevelopment housing project have the same constitutional rights as a tenant in a public housing project so that he must receive notice of the reasons why his tenancy is being terminated as well as a fair hearing, before an eviction order is issued by this Court?
It is essential, therefore, to analyze the organization of a redevelopment company. Although it is a privately owned housing project, Section 101 of the Redevelopment Companies Law prescribes the 'policy of state and purposes of act' as being for 'public uses and purposes' and 'in the public interest'. The company is under the supervision of the Housing and Development Administration of the City of New York, which has extensive, almost absolute power, including the removal of any or all directors and the appointment of new managers. Its capital is minimal and there is a limited return of investment. Property may be taken for it by condemnation and it has special tax exemptions. The mortgage is insured by the Federal Housing Authority which also prescribes regulations. The premises, like public housing, are not subject to 'rent control' or 'rent stabilization' by virtue of their special governmental regulation. Clearly, it possesses more attributes of 'public' housing than 'private' housing.
The same conclusion was reached by Judge Tenney of the United States District Court in a case involving this very landlord: Colon v. Tompkins Square Neighbors, Inc., 294 F.Supp. 134 (S.D.N.Y., 1968). In holding that the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to the tenant selection policy of the landlord, the court stated at page 137:
'The fact that Haven Plaza Apartments has been constructed on a designated urban renewal site, is financed by an FHA-insured mortgage, that the managing corporation, Tompkins Square, is the recipient of certain tax exemptions granted by the City as well as certain rent supplement subsidies and other forms of financial assistance from City, State and Federal authorities (Dano Affid. of April 9, 1968 at 2), and that the daily operations are Ultimately supervised by both the New York City Housing and Development Administration and the Federal Housing Administration and the Federal Housing Administration (hereinafter referred to as the 'FHA'), pursuant to Tompkins Square's Disposition Agreement with the City of New York and Regulatory Agreement with the FHA (id. at 3), indicates that there exists sufficient and continuing government participation and involvement in the project so as to bring any discriminatory operational practices within the gambit of constitutional prohibition.' (citations omitted).
See also McQueen v. Druker, 317 F.Supp. 1122 (D.Mass.1970), in which Judge Wyzanski, relying in part upon the Colon case, held that a tenant in a similarly organized project was entitled to due process before the landlord could refuse to renew an expired lease.
I am cognizant of the fact that there was a contrary decision by the Court of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Appel v. Beyer
...case within the ambit of the above-quoted definition of governmental action in due process context. In Tompkins Square Neighbors, Inc. v. Zaragosa (1971), 68 Misc.2d 103, 326 N.Y.S.2d 665 the landlord of a minimum capital, limited dividend housing project formed under state law, and charact......
-
New York County Dist. Attorney's Office v. Oquendo
...to respondents in the hearing before this Court. (Sherman v. Kopach, 75 Misc.2d 18, 347 N.Y.S.2d 140; Tompkins Square Neighbors v. Zaragoza, 68 Misc.2d 103, 326 N.Y.S.2d 665; Johnson v. White Plains Urban Renewal Agency, 65 Misc.2d 293, 317 N.Y.S.2d 899; Thorpe v. Housing Authority, 393 U.S......
-
Bonner v. Park Lake Housing Development Fund Corp.
...397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287; Matter of Hecht v. Monaghan, 307 N.Y. 461, 121 N.E.2d 421; Tompkins Square Neighbors, Inc. v. Zaragoza, 68 Misc.2d 103, 326 N.Y.S.2d 665. Accordingly, the application is granted annulling the determination by respondent to terminate the petitione......
-
Sherman v. Kopach
...afforded all the due process guarantees to which she is entitled in the summary proceeding in City Court (see Tompkins Sq. Neighbors v. Zaragoza, 68 Misc.2d 103, 326 N.Y.S.2d 665; Matter of Johnson v. White Plains Urban Renewal Agency, 65 Misc.2d 293, 317 N.Y.S.2d 899; see, also, Thorpe v. ......