Upaca Site 7 Assoc. v. Hunter-Crawford, 2006 NY Slip Op 50887(U) (NY 4/4/2006), 251881/05.

• Court: New York Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Ruben A. Martino
• Citation: 2006 NY Slip Op 50887(U)
• Parties: UPACA SITE 7 ASSOCIATES, Petitioner, v. LONENE HUNTER-CRAWFORD, Respondent.
• Decision Date: 04 April 2006
• Docket Number: 251881/05.

Page 1

2006 NY Slip Op 50887(U) UPACA SITE 7 ASSOCIATES, Petitioner,
v.
LONENE HUNTER-CRAWFORD, Respondent. 251881/05. Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County. Decided April 4, 2006.

RUBEN A. MARTINO, J.

Background

This is a licensee holdover involving premises receiving a Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issued project based Section 8 subsidy which is allocated to the apartment. Respondent, represented by an attorney, answered the petition raising lack of personal jurisdiction and succession rights. The traverse was denied after a hearing and the case was then tried on the merits. This Court issued a decision after trial dated February 8, 2006 which was recalled after the Court became aware of the Appellate Term's recent decision in 2013 Amsterdam Avenue Holding Associates v. Estate of Almeda Wells, NYLJ 1/31/06, 24:1 (App Term 1st Dept). Both sides were given an opportunity to submit additional briefs.

Facts

The court finds the following facts. The premises are privately owned by petitioner but receives a HUD issued Section 8 subsidy which is project based. The tenant of record was Irene Hunter. Her original lease commenced February 1, 1977. She, as required by HUD rules and regulations, filed and signed yearly income certifications listing all family members occupying the apartment and their incomes. She last signed one in 2004. Ms. Hunter died on March 17, 2005. Respondent is the daughter of Irene Hunter. Neither the original lease nor any of the annual certifications lists respondent as a family member. Respondent's income was not used in calculating the tenant's share of the rent while she was in the apartment. Ms. Hunter never requested permission nor notified petitioner that her daughter was living with her.

Respondent moved into the subject apartment on or around August 1, 2002 to care for her mother. Petitioner concedes that respondent may have lived primarily with Ms. Hunter since August 2002 and did not object to the introduction of documents showing that she used the apartment address for Social Security statements, credit union statements, public assistance,

Page 2

unemployment benefits, phone accounts, voting and some W2 forms. The Court finds that respondent primarily resided with the tenant of record, her mother, for at least two years before she died.

Issue

The issue is whether respondent can succeed to this privately owned project based Section 8 apartment when she primarily resided with the tenant of record for at least two years before the tenant died although she was never listed on the lease or income certifications and never given permission to co-occupy the unit.

Discussion

The federal statute governing Section 8 benefits recognizes the entire family as the tenant and defines families as including remaining family members (42 USC §1437a; Matter of Manhattan Plaza Associates v. DHPD, 8 AD3rd 111, 778 NYS2d 164 [1st Dept 2004]). The federal regulations further define the term "family" as, "A person or group of persons ... approved to reside in a unit with assistance under the program" (24 CFR 982.4; 24 CFR 983.2; Sunset Housing Assoc. v. Caban, 190 Misc 2d 343, 737 NYS2d 778 [Civil Ct, Kings Co 2001]). In order to be a recognized family member, the federal...