Soumas v Gregg

[*1] Soumas v Gregg 2017 NY Slip Op 51270(U) Decided on September 27, 2017 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on September 27, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman, J.P., Ling-Cohan, Gonzales, JJ.
570194/17

Gregory C. Soumas, as Court- Appointed Receiver, Petitioner-Landlord-Appellant,

against

Vashti Gregg, Respondent-Tenant-Respondent.

Petitioner-receiver appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Hannah Cohen, J.), dated March 24, 2017, which conditionally granted tenant's motion to be restored to possession upon payment to petitioner-receiver of (1) $720 in arrears, (2) tenant's share of the full contract rent for April 2017 in the amount of $144 and (3) $1,200 in legal fees by a date certain in a nonpayment summary proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Order (Hannah Cohen, J.), dated March 24, 2017, affirmed, with $10 costs.

Under the particular facts and circumstances of record in this nonpayment proceeding, we find no abuse of discretion in the grant of post-eviction relief to tenant upon her payment of (1) her share of the rent arrears as a Section 8 tenant, (2) her share of the unsubsidized rent for April 2017, and (3) attorneys' fees due petitioner-receiver (see Matter of Lafayette Boynton Hsg. Corp. v Pickett, 135 AD3d 518 [2016]). "Good cause" (RPAPL § 749[3]) sufficient to warrant the tenant's restoral to possession was shown by petitioner-receiver's impermissible demand for the full Department of Housing Preservation and Development [HPD] contract rent, which was far in excess of the tenant's Section 8 share of the rent (see Pinnacle Bronx W., LLC v Jennings, 29 Misc 3d 61 [App Term, 1st Dept 2010]). Indeed, counsel for the receiver readily admitted that the receiver was unaware that tenant was a recipient of a Section 8 rent subsidy, and further stated that despite the appointment of a receiver, HPD continued to send all correspondence to the building owner and the prior building manager.

"Absent a showing by landlord of a new agreement ... a Section 8 tenant does not become liable for the Section 8 share of the rent as rent' even after the termination of the subsidy" (Prospect Place HDFC v Gaildon, 6 Misc 3d 135[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50232[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2005]), quoting Rainbow Assoc. v Culkin, 2003 NY Slip Op 50771[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2003]). Here, no new lease agreement was entered into by the parties obligating the tenant to pay the full contract rent. Thus, a nonpayment proceeding does not lie to recover the Section 8 portion of the rent from the tenant.

We have considered petitioner-receiver's remaining arguments and find them to be [*2]without merit.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: September 27, 2017