Matter of Johnson v New York City Hous. Auth.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Matter of Johnson v New York City Hous. Auth. 2012 NY Slip Op 32887(U) November 28, 2012 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: 400395/12 Judge: Peter H. Moulton 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 121612012 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY Justice MOTION DATE -V- L/ MOTION SEQ. NO. v ,were read on this motion toffor The fallowing papers, numbered 1 to Notice of MotionlOrder to Show Cause Answering Affidavits - Affidavits - Exhibits IW s ) . IW s ) . IW s ) . - Exhibits Replying Affidavits Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered thatathis-noatrorris 1. CHECK ONE: ............................................................... 2. CHECK AS APPROPRIATE: ...........................MOT~~N 3. CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: ................................................ +-/% c, 1s: A U d NON-FINAL DISPOSITION GRANTED 0SETTLE ORDER DO NOT POST DENIED aGRANTED IN PART [J1OTHER 0SUBMIT ORDER \RY nFIDUC~ APPOINTMENT REFERENCE [* 2] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 40 B - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * - -X - In the Matter of the Application of STACEY JOHNSON , Index No. 400395/12 Petitioner, Respondent. - - , , , , , , - i - - - - - - -X - - - - PETER H. MOULTON, J . S . C . : Petitioner, a full time college student, brings this Article 78 proceeding to vacate the decision of hearing officer Arlene Arnbert ("Ambert") dated petitioner's December 23 I January 12I 2012 I which denied 2011 application to vacate her default in failing to appear at a chronic rent delinquency' hearing.' Petitioner contends that she did not appear at the'hearing on November 22, 2011 because she was taking her final exams at Monroe College. 'The hearing date was unilaterally rescheduled by respondent at least five times, f o r unspecified reasons. of Status letter dated December 14, 2011, respondent approved Arnbert's November 2 9 , 2011 decision recommending termination of tenancy in light of petitioner's default on November 2 2 , 2011. 2 B y Determination . .. ' [* 3] Backsround By affidavit sworn to on January 6, 2012, respondent opposed petitioner's application to vacate her default. In opposition, respondent stated that \'this is the Applicant's Znd default with respect the this proceeding" ; that petitioner 'failed to establish an excusable default since she failed to comply with the requirement to provide documentation in support of a reason for not attending representative adjournment',; the to and hearing . . the hearing that respondent and and failed to failed "presently to request owes a send $854 an in outstanding rent which represents 2.1 months at the rate of $409 for the months of November 2011 through January 2012." Respondent bas'ed the amount owed on a ledger which it submitted to Ambert, reflecting a balance of $4,498.60 as rent owed through December, 2011. However, respondent did not submit a housing court stipulation, dated December 7 , 2011, which provided that petitioner owed a total of $3,016.16 as rent owed through December, 2011--$1,482.44 less than the amount indicated in the ledger.3 The stipulation provided that petitioner agreed to pay $2,660 by December 8, 2011 and $356.00 by December 30, 2011, and 'The stipulation is attached to both petitioner's and respondent's papers in this proceeding and is referenced in the affidavit of respondent's employee, Joy Zackary, submitted in opposition to the Petiti,on. 2 [* 4] the ledger indicates that respondent posted payments of $2,660 on December 21, 2011 and $325.00 on December 27, 2011.4 In her January respondent's 2012 reasoning. decision, Ambert Ambert acknowledges fully adopts petitioner's explanation of excusable default, indicated on the New York City Housing Authority Office of Impartial Hearings form (the "Form"). Ambert nevertheless concludes that petitioner failed to establish an excusable default because petitioner did not submit documentary evidence that she was taking final college exams on November 2011 and failed ' o t 22, call to request and [ s i c ] adjournment o r to arrange to have a representative call or appear on her behalf to request an adjournment." excuse was incredible. Ambert never states that petitioner's Ambert further faults petitioner because \\[t]his is not the first time that the Tenant's failure to appear has resulted on an administrative default ." However, Ambert had previously vacated petitioner's prior default, in light of proof that petitioner had a New York City .Department of Human Resources Administration Bureau of Eligibility Verification appointment on the same day. Ambert acknowledges petitioner's meritorious . defense, asserted in the Form, stating "My rent is p a i d . I do not owe any back rent. I am also being charged for a washing machine that I do 4The payments may have been made earlier then when they were actually posted. 3 [* 5] An access was set up f o r Friday Dec. 16, 2 0 1 1 and no not have. one showed up." However, Ambert concludes, based on respondent's ledger, that petitioner did not raise a meritorious defense *because she had not been current for at least a year, excluding' the washing machine charges, and owed over t w o months rent for the period November through)January, 2012, Ambert gave no weight to the fact that the ledger reflects payments of $ 2 , 9 8 5 in December, 2011. Discussion In opposition to the petition, respondent cites to New York City Housing Authority Termination of Tenancy Procedures, which provide that: If the tenant fails to answer or appear at the hearing the Hearing Officer shall note the default upon the record and shall make his/her decision on the record before him. Upon application of the tenant made within a reasonable time after his/her default in appearance, the Hearing Officer may, for good cause shown, open such default and set a new hearing date. (Ex B TI 8 ) . NYCHA' s good cause requirement is similar to the "excusable default" requirement f o r vacating a judicial proceeding under CPLR fi 5015 and requires the party to demonstrate an excusable default and a meritorious defense (see Matter of Daniels v Popolizio, 171 AD2d 596 Auth., [lst Dept 1 9 9 1 1 ; 300 AD2d 541 decision, regarding see a l s o Gore v N e w York C i t y Hous. [2d Dept 20021). whether the 4 -.. . -. . - . .. . . - . .. . . . . .. - .. . . . .. . . .. . .. .. . tenant The hearing officer's established excusable' [* 6] default and a meritorious defense, must be upheld unless it is irrational or arbitrary and capricious (Matter of Daniels, 171 AD2d 596, s u p r a ) . Ambert's decision not to reopen petitioner's default was The Form specifies, in arbitrary and capricious and irrational. relevant part, that to establish good cause, a tenant must: Give a reasonable excuse to explain why you missed your hearing. (Attach documents such as doctor's note, c o u r t paper, employer's letter, etc.) AND . . . [glive a good defense why you think the Housing ,Authority's charges against you are not true, or the problem has been corrected, or otherwise explain why your tenancy should not be terminated (Examples may include: The rent was paid on time; I lost my job; The family member was wrongly accused, or did not live in the apartment; I verified my income; or The charges are not true because [give reason] etc.1 . did not submit documentary proof, or call to request an adjournment or send a representative to the hearing to do so. However, there is no "requirement" that documentation be provided to demonstrate petitioner's a reasonable statements for excuse alone, if the credible, default, may and suffice. / Therefore, findings of l a c k of excusable default have been upheld evidence or unworthy of belief (see e . g . , Matter of Daniels, 171 AD2d 596, supra [tenant's claim that he was at a welfare recertification appointment, instead of a termination hearing in 5 [* 7] connection with his drug arrest was r e j e c t e d where respondent produced evidence that there was no such appointment scheduled1 ; Matter of Velasquez v Hernandez, 23 AD3d 313 [lst Dept 2 0 0 5 1 [tenant's claim that she did not attend a termination hearing because she did not get notice because she had no mailbox key was rejected given that she had used the same excuse a year earlier in vacating her default and failed to explain how she was able to receive other mailings from respondent, including the decision vacating her prior default]). Ambert, who did not find that petitioner's excuse was incredible, arbitrarily found a lack of excusable. default based on a non-existent \\requirement" that documents must be submitted to support a tenant's statements. Moreover, failing to she irrationally faulted petitioner for adjourn the hearing, or have someone appear on her behalf to do so when the Form does not request this information, and only asks for ' reasonable e x c ~ s e " . Ambert also arbitrarily faulted petitioner ' a ~ for a previous default, which Ambert herself had vacated. Ambert's conclusion that petitioner failed to raise meritorious defense is also arbitrary and irrational. 'In response to Ambert's decision, petitioner explains that she did try to call to adjourn the hearing, but no one answered the phone. Respondent cites the well established case law that evidence cannot be considered f o r the first time by the court, where it is not initially presented to the agency below. However, because that information was not requested on the Form, a "Catch 2 2 " situation results. a Ambert [* 8] improperly focused on petitioner's failure to pay rent for a period of time which was not the subject the original or amended charges (see Matter of Butler v Christian, 88 AD2d 952 [2d Dept 19821) [petitioner was deprived of due process because the hearing officer in a chronic rent delinquency hearing reached his determination based on tenant's failure to pay rent outside of the period that was specified in the charges]). She further failed to consider that petitioner paid all rent for t h e period at issue (through August 2011, according to the amended Specification of Charges). Whether a problem has been cured is an accepted defense (see Matter of Vazquez v N e w York C i t y H o w . Auth. (Robert Fulton Houses), 57 AD3d 360 [lst Dept 20081 [hearing officer found that the tenant cured her chronic rent delinquency by the time of the decision] 1 . The Form itself indicates that \\a good defense" includes that 'the problems have been corrected." Ambert f u r t h e r arbitrarily concluded that petitioner failed to present a meritorious defense because the 'defense presented by the Tenant was inaccurate." Ambert reached this conclusion because petitioner had stated in the Form that "my rent is paid" but Ambert found that two months of rent was still due through January, 2012. failed to It is irrational to conclude that petitioner present a meritorious 7 defense merely because her [* 9] statement may have been inaccurate, where there is no indication that the statement was made in bad faith.6 In sum, when taken as a whole or in part, Ambert's decision is arbitrary and irrational. in court. a Petitioner should be given her day Petitioner never explained why she did not pay rent on timely basis during the year at issue. While respondent concludes that petitioner's failure to do so translates into a lack of a meritorious defense, the Form does not state that a " tenant must list all defenses. Rather, it provides that ' good a Petitioner focused on ' a defense" should be indicated. good defense" i.e., that "the problem has been corrected" and should not be deprived of t h e opportunity to present any other defenses that she might have at the hearing. Accordingly, it is ADJUDGED that the petition is granted and petitioner's default in appearing at a hearing on November 22, 2011 is vacated; and it is further 61n support of her Petition, petitioner states that "1 was told by Ms. Zachary that all I had to pay was $ 2 , 6 0 0 . 0 0 plus $356.00 (dec. rent) to bring my balance to zero." Respondent counters that this explanation cannot be considered here because it was not raised with the agency. It is troubling that Ambert was unaware that petitioner believed, apparently correctly, that her rent was paid in full through December, 2011, as a result of the fact that respondent provided only the ledger, not the housing court stipulation, reflecting a contrary, and lesser amount due. 8 [* 10] ADJUDGED that in light of Lie above, rnbert s decisions dated January 12, 2012 and November 29, 2011, and respondent s decision dated December 14, 2011 are vacated; and it is f u r t h e r ORDERED that the matter is remanded for a hew hearing on whether petitioner s tenancy should be terminated based on chronic rent delinquency, with the requisite notice to be mailed petitioner as to the new hearing date. This Constitutes the Order and Judgment of the Court. Dated: November 28, 2012 ENTER : to
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.
