Matter of Voker v New York City Hous. Auth.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Matter of Voker v New York City Hous. Auth. 2012 NY Slip Op 31764(U) June 29, 2012 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 401357/11 Judge: Judith J. Gische Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] SCANNED ON 71612012 SUPREME COURT OF M E STATE OF N W W R K - NWYORK CQUNTY INDEX NO. MOTION QATE -V- MOTION SEQ. NO. fhs following pepon, numbmd I t -were o Notlw of Motionl Order t Show Caurr o Amwerlng Affldavlb L, read on h i m motion tdfor -AWdnvlb - Exhtbb .". - Exhlblb I - ReplylngAtAdavlts Upon the forsgolng papen, It k ordered that t k motion h NEW YORK Check onr: &NAL Chsek If approprlrts: [ 1DO N 1 DISPOSITION \ d m T c// NON-FINAL DlSPo$FlON 0 REFERENCE 0SEfnWSUBWT QRDER [* 2] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 10 X 1 1 1 1 - In the Matter of the Application of PeclalodOrder MOSES VOKER, Index No.; 401357/11 Seq. No.: 001 *FIL ¬D Petitioner, For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules JUL 05 2012 Present: -againat- Hon. Judith J. Gisc& J.S.C. NEW YORK CllY HOUSING AUTHORITY. NEW YORK TY CLERKS OFFICE Respondent. __-____-__11_______1_-----r----r------------~--------- X Recitation, as required by CPLR 2219 [all of the papers considered in review of this (these) motion(s): Papers Nurnbered Pet s petition [art. 781 w/ MV verifled petition w/exhs. ............................................. 1 Resp answer wl NMH affirm, wlexhs ..................................................................... 2 Upon the foregoing papers, the decision and order of the court is as follows: GISCHE, J.: Petitioner, Moses Voker (hereafter Voker ), is a tenant of respondent landlord, New York City Housing Authority (hereafter NYCHA ). The petitioner has brought this Article 78 summary proceeding challenging a hearing officer s decision to terminate his tenancy. The Hearing Officer determined that Voker was ineligible to continue living at his residence as a result of his chronic delinquency in the payment of rent pursuant to NYCHA s guidelines, which enumerate the grounds on which it may terminate a lease. Voker has now brought this Article 78 summary proceeding to challenge this decision. For the reasons set forth below, the petition is denied. - page 1 of 5 - [* 3] FACTS The facts and events surrounding this case are largely undisputed. Vaker has been living at his residence in public housing for over thirty years. in July of 2008, Voker entered into a new lease agreement with NYCHA at a rate of $759 per month. During the first two years of his tenancy, Voker had an extensive history of failing to pay rent both on time and In full. As a result of his chronic rent delinquency, NYCHA sent Voker a letter in early June of 2010. The letter informed him that NYCHA was considering termination of his lease and requested that he meet with the Houslng Manager to discuss his rent problems. Voker did not respond to the letter. Approximately one week later, NYCHA sent Voker a second letter, again offering him an opportunity to discuss the mattw with the Housing Manager. Again, Voker did not respond. In late July of 2010, NYCHA sent Voker a letter indicating that it was moving to terminate his lease due to hls chronic rent delinquency and that prior to making its final decision, he would be offered an opportunlty to appear with counsel at a hearing. After multiple adjournments,as a result of Voker's requests for more time to secure counsel, Voker appeared at his hearing in February of 201 1 and stated that he would represent hlmsetf. At the hearing, NYCHA proffered evidence detailing the past deficiencies in Vokets rent. Specifically, NYCHA's ledger showed that Voker had faifed to pay his rent on time from August of 2009 through December of 2009 and that he had not paid any rent from Januery of 2010 through September of 2010. The ledger also indicated that as a result of Voker's failure to pay rent during the latter time period, as well as, during other periods throughout his tenancy, he was in arrears of approximately $7,800 in back-rent. In addition, NYCHA submitted to the Hearing Officer a rent notice that it had provided to Voker in May of 2010. The rent notice informed Vokar that his rent was being lowered in order to reflect the decrease in his annual income after losing and then changing his job in August of 2009. NYCHA also - page 2 of 5 - 1 [* 4] provlded the Hearing Officerwith Voker's most recent affidavit of Income from March of 201 0, which showed he was currently earning approximately $24,100 per year. In response, Voker admitted to the charges of chronic rent delinquency proffered against him. Voker argued that the loss of his jab and subsequent change in employment interfered with his ability to pay rent. He also stated that a number of other "issues" had arisen which prevented him from paying his rent, but did not provide any evidence to substantiate those assertions.. Finally, Voker informed the Hearing O f h w that he recently applied for a "one-shot deal" with the New York City Department of Human Services in order to catch-up on his rent and that he would receive an answer on the status of his application within the next two weeks. The Hearing Officer sustained NYCHAs charges of chronic rent delinquency against Voker. In her findings, she noted that Vokel's income had not changed within the last year and that "he just didn't have the money to pay rent." NYCHA adopted the Hearing Officer's decision and provided Voker with a notice to vacate which ordered him to leave the premises by April 30th, 201 1. In his Article 78 petition, Voker now claims that all arrears have been paid in full and that he is current on his rent. He also submitted documentation indlcating that the New York City Department of Social Services approved his request for the "one shot deal" shortly after the hearlng in the amount of $6,598.00. Additionally, Voker also raises claims about a cardiovascular issue and a car accident that inhibited hls ability to pay rent promptly and fully. DISCUSSION The standard for evaluating NYCHA's determination to terminate Voker's lease i s whether that decision was made, "in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of page 3 of 5 - [* 5] law or was arbitra d capricious." CPLR § 7803[3]. A determination is capricious if it is made with unsound reason and without regard to the facts of the case. Thus, the question before the Court is whether, In light of the facts, NYCHA had a rational basis for reaching its decision. Pel1v. Board of Educationof Unim Free School District No. 1 of TQWM of $carsdale arrd MamarQ& , 34 N.Y.2d 222 (1974). Where, as hers, NYCHA terminates a lease as a result of a tenant's default, the only determination subject to review is whether to vacate NYCHA's decision. Y a c b g a y . Francg, 95 N.Y.2d 342 (2000). Nevertheless, NYCHA's decision will not be vacated unless it is "so disproportionate to the offense, in the llght of all the circumstances, as to be shocklng to one's 6ense of fairness." Fell v. Board of af Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of TQwns Qf $carsdale and Mamaroneck, Westchegter County, 34 N.Y.2d 222 (1974). Moreover, the Court's review is limited only to those claims and issues petitioner raised at the hearing. FeafheRbne v. France, 95 N.Y.2d 550 (2000). Petitioner may not supplement the record with information that he did not present to the hearing officer. Applying the legal standard to the present set of facts, the Hearing Officer's decision to sustain the charges of chronic rent delinquency against Voker was not arbitrary and capricious. Despite Voker's claims in his petition that all arrears have been pald and that he i current on his rent, NYCHA's rent ledger shows that he is stlll behind on rent and owes s approximately $600 to NYCHA, Even ifVoker had pald off all amears and was current on his rent, the Hearing OtYlncer's decision would stlll not be arbitrary and capricious since the decision was based upon Voker's history of failing to pay rent on tlme and in full during his tenancy and before many of the recent payments were made by Voker and DSS on his behalf. This is a sufficient bask to support NYCHA's decision. Voker's contention, that his lass of and subsequent change in employment was a - page 4 of 5 - [* 6] singular situation that adversely affected his ability to pay rent, was properly rejected by the Hearing Officer. Voker lost his job in August of 2009, but was able to secure new employment the same month, earning only slightly less and has since remained employed, After receiving his March 2010 affidavit of income, NYCWA adjusted Voker's rent in order to reflect the decrease in his annual income. However, when the Hearing Officer asked whether anything happened after March of 2010 that hampered his ability to pay rent, Voker admitted that "nothlng really happened" and that he just didn't have the money to pay rent. Thus, the Hearing Officer's decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious since Voker's change of employment in August of 2009 did not reatly bear upon his failure to pay rent timely and In full. Lastly, in his petition, Voker for the first time contends that a medical issue aa well as an automobile accident thwarted his ability to keep up with the rent. However, since he did not raise these issues before the Hearing Officer, thi5 Court cannot address them in this preceeding. Featherstone, 95 N.Y.2d at 550. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Hearing Officer's decision to terminate the petitioner's tenancy was neither arbitrary nor capricious since there was a rational basis for concluding that the petitioner is no longer a suitable tenant. In accordance herewith, it Is hereby ORDERED, DECREED and ADJUDGED that the petition is hereby dismissed with prejudice. This constitutes the decision, order and judgment of the court. Dated: New York, NY June 29,2012 So Ordere ~ I L E D -page 5 of 5 - JUL 05 2012 NEW YORK COUNTY CLERKS OFFICE
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
