Landlord & Tenant

HPD Cannot Be Estopped From Enforcing Eligibility Requirements

Matter of Schorr v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development

NYLJ 3/14/08, p. 28, col. 3

Court of Appeals

(memorandum opinion)

In an article 78 proceeding to annul an eviction determination by the Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), HPD appealed from the Appellate Division's affirmance of Supreme Court's grant of the petition. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that HPD could not be estopped from enforcing Mitchell-Lama eligibility requirements.

In 1987, current petitioner moved into the subject apartment with his parents and his brother. The apartment is a Mitchell-Lama apartment owned by East Midtown Plaza, a limited-profit housing finance company. Petitioner left for college in the early 1990s, and returned in 1999. By February 2000, his parents, the tenants of record, had vacated. Because petitioner had not lived in the apartment for two consecutive years before 2000, he did not qualify for succession rights to the apartment under the Mitchell-Lama law. Nevertheless, East Midtown Plaza took no action to remove petitioner until after petitioner had brought two successful lawsuits against East Midtown Plaza. At that point, East Midtown Plaza initiated eviction proceedings, and HPD affirmed the eviction because petitioner had failed to establish that he qualified for succession rights. When East Midtown Plaza then commenced a holdover proceeding, petitioner responded with this article 78 proceeding seeking to annul HPD's determination. Supreme Court and the Appellate Division held that HPD and East Midtown were estopped from evicting petitioner.

In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that estoppel cannot be invoked against a governmental agency to prevent it from discharging its statutory duties. Here, because petitioner had not met the eligibility requirements for succession rights, he was an illegal tenant. Estoppel was not available to prevent HPD from exercising its statutory duty to provide Mitchell-Lama housing only to individuals who meet the eligibility requirements.

HPD Cannot Be Estopped From Enforcing Eligibility Requirements

Matter of Schorr v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development

NYLJ 3/14/08, p. 28, col. 3

Court of Appeals

(memorandum opinion)

In an article 78 proceeding to annul an eviction determination by the Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), HPD appealed from the Appellate Division's affirmance of Supreme Court's grant of the petition. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that HPD could not be estopped from enforcing Mitchell-Lama eligibility requirements.

In 1987, current petitioner moved into the subject apartment with his parents and his brother. The apartment is a Mitchell-Lama apartment owned by East Midtown Plaza, a limited-profit housing finance company. Petitioner left for college in the early 1990s, and returned in 1999. By February 2000, his parents, the tenants of record, had vacated. Because petitioner had not lived in the apartment for two consecutive years before 2000, he did not qualify for succession rights to the apartment under the Mitchell-Lama law. Nevertheless, East Midtown Plaza took no action to remove petitioner until after petitioner had brought two successful lawsuits against East Midtown Plaza. At that point, East Midtown Plaza initiated eviction proceedings, and HPD affirmed the eviction because petitioner had failed to establish that he qualified for succession rights. When East Midtown Plaza then commenced a holdover proceeding, petitioner responded with this article 78 proceeding seeking to annul HPD's determination. Supreme Court and the Appellate Division held that HPD and East Midtown were estopped from evicting petitioner.

In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that estoppel cannot be invoked against a governmental agency to prevent it from discharging its statutory duties. Here, because petitioner had not met the eligibility requirements for succession rights, he was an illegal tenant. Estoppel was not available to prevent HPD from exercising its statutory duty to provide Mitchell-Lama housing only to individuals who meet the eligibility requirements.