18809 research outputs found
Sort by
Harlem Restoration HDFC v. BREWER
No full textIn this nonpayment case, the court granted a tenant\u27s motion for partial summary judgment on a harassment counterclaim. The judge found that the landlord\u27s repeated failure to correct hazardous violations created a **rebuttable presumption of harassment** under NYC Admin. Code § 27-2004. Since the landlord failed to rebut this presumption, the court awarded the tenant **statutory damages** of 2,000 payable to HPD. The court also issued a Class C harassment violation against the landlord, but the case remains pending for a final determination on the remaining claims
Andrew Jackson Realty Co., L.P. v. Patan
No full textIn a holdover proceeding, the landlord sought possession, arguing the apartment was deregulated in 2005. The tenant counterclaimed for rent overcharges, alleging fraudulent deregulation due to a lack of renovations. The trial court granted possession to the landlord and dismissed the tenant\u27s counterclaim. The Appellate Term affirmed, holding the landlord met its burden to prove lawful deregulation via vacancy and longevity increases, which pushed the rent over the threshold. The tenant failed to demonstrate fraud or overcharge. The court also found the tenant waived arguments regarding notice by not raising them below
135 W. 89th St., Hous. Dev. Fund Corp. v. Powell
No full textThe Appellate Term affirmed the dismissal of a nuisance holdover proceeding where the landlord alleged the tenant breached the proprietary lease by failing to maintain the apartment. The court found the landlord\u27s notice of termination defective and insufficient to serve as a predicate for the proceeding. The notice was deemed conclusory, failing to provide factual allegations to support the claim that the defaults specified in the notice to cure had not been remedied during the cure period, particularly considering Adult Protective Services had performed multiple cleanings of the apartment
Clinton Arms Associates v. Gonzalez
No full textThe court granted the tenant\u27s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the landlord\u27s nonpayment petition. The landlord sought market rent after purporting to terminate the tenant\u27s HUD Project-Based Section 8 subsidy. However, the landlord failed to demonstrate compliance with HUD Handbook regulations for recertification and subsidy termination. Specifically, the recertification and termination notices lacked required information, proof of proper service (including attempted personal delivery for termination), and timely issuance. The court found that deficient recertification notices, which did not state the exact market rent, preclude a nonpayment proceeding. No question of fact existed regarding the landlord\u27s non-compliance, necessitating dismissal
When the Taxpayers Are Not Innocent: The Need for Punitive Damages Against Municipalities Under the Fair Housing Act
No full textCombatting housing discrimination by municipalities is a core function of the Fair Housing Act (FHA). Courts disagree, however, as to whether punitive damages can be awarded against municipal defendants. The purpose of this Note is twofold. First, it compares the Second Circuit’s recent decision in Gilead Community Services, Inc. v. Town of Cromwell, which held that punitive damages were appropriate against the Town of Cromwell, with the reasoning of district courts that came to the opposite conclusion in reliance on § 1983 precedent. Second, notwithstanding the sufficiency of the statutory analysis, it evaluates the public policy concerns of awarding punitive damages against municipalities in the context of the FHA.
This Note argues that U.S. Supreme Court precedent requires courts looking for municipal immunity waivers to read statutes alongside their legislative history. Therefore, it contends that the Second Circuit is correct that the FHA authorizes punitive damages against municipalities. It then supplements the Second Circuit’s statutory analysis with an analysis of public policy factors specific to punitive damages against municipalities in FHA litigation. This Note concludes that public policy necessitates the availability of such damages because taxpayers are key players in municipal housing decisions and the taxpayers themselves must therefore be punished and deterred from continuing housing discrimination. Finally, it recommends that when text, legislative history, and public policy all point toward allowing punitive damages, the procedural safeguards already in place, including holistic jury instructions and multiple layers of excessiveness review, best address public policy concerns
1712-1715 HDFC, INC. v. Lambert
No full textLandlord commenced a licensee/squatter holdover proceeding against the tenant, the daughter of the deceased prior tenant, seeking possession of a Project Based Section 8 apartment. The tenant asserted succession rights. The primary legal issue was whether the tenant\u27s omission from the prior tenant\u27s annual HUD recertification forms precluded her succession claim, given the building\u27s Project Based Section 8 status. The court found that such an omission created a rebuttable presumption, not an absolute bar. After a trial where the tenant presented substantial documentary and testimonial evidence of co-occupancy that was largely unrefuted, the court ruled in favor of the tenant, dismissing the landlord\u27s petition with prejudice on the grounds that the tenant had established her succession defense
LO. BUILDINGS LLC v. Brown
No full textIn this holdover proceeding, the tenant moved to dismiss, alleging the landlord failed to use the required Notice of Petition form mandated by 22 NYCRR § 208.42(b) and Administrative Order 163/19. The court found that the landlord\u27s omission of the phrase or are deaf or hard of hearing from the interpretation services section constituted a substantive and fatal defect, akin to a defective predicate notice. Citing precedent, the court held the Notice of Petition was not amendable, thus granting the tenant\u27s motion and dismissing the proceeding. The landlord\u27s cross-motion was not considered