Landlord & Tenant

Supreme Ct., N.Y. Cty.

(Friedman, H.)

In tenants' actions to require landlords to accept their Section 8 vouchers, tenants sought summary judgment. The court granted their motion, holding that only the New York City Housing Authority, not landlords, had standing to challenge tenants' eligibility to use the vouchers for their apartments.

Tenants who had long resided in their apartments challenged the right of their respective landlords to refuse to accept Section 8 benefits when tenants became entitled to them. In a previous determination, the court held hat the anti-discrimination provisions of the J-51 law and Local Law 10 precluded landlords from refusing to accept section 8 benefits from tenants who become eligible while they reside in their current apartments. Landlords continued to refuse to accept the section 8 vouchers, in one case asserting that the apartment itself did not qualify because it did not have a second sink, in the other case because tenant was living in the apartment with her boyfriend while the section 8 voucher listed her as the sole member of the household. Tenants sought summary judgment establishing landlords' obligation to accept the vouchers.

In awarding summary judgment to tenants, the court first acknowledged that landlord may not certify false information regarding a tenancy, but the court indicated that landlords had made no showing that landlord would be required to certify false information if it accepted the vouchers. The court held that only the housing authority, not the landlord, is entitled to make eligibility determinations.

Landlords Lack Standing to Challenge Eligibility to Use Section 8 Vouchers

Tapia v. Successful Management Corp.

NYLJ 6/15/11, p.17

Supreme Ct., N.Y. Cty.

(Friedman, H.)

In tenants' actions to require landlords to accept their Section 8 vouchers, tenants sought summary judgment. The court granted their motion, holding that only the New York City Housing Authority, not landlords, had standing to challenge tenants' eligibility to use the vouchers for their apartments.

Tenants who had long resided in their apartments challenged the right of their respective landlords to refuse to accept Section 8 benefits when tenants became entitled to them. In a previous determination, the court held hat the anti-discrimination provisions of the J-51 law and Local Law 10 precluded landlords from refusing to accept section 8 benefits from tenants who become eligible while they reside in their current apartments. Landlords continued to refuse to accept the section 8 vouchers, in one case asserting that the apartment itself did not qualify because it did not have a second sink, in the other case because tenant was living in the apartment with her boyfriend while the section 8 voucher listed her as the sole member of the household. Tenants sought summary judgment establishing landlords' obligation to accept the vouchers.

In awarding summary judgment to tenants, the court first acknowledged that landlord may not certify false information regarding a tenancy, but the court indicated that landlords had made no showing that landlord would be required to certify false information if it accepted the vouchers. The court held that only the housing authority, not the landlord, is entitled to make eligibility determinations.