NYCHA Rangel Houses v Groves
Annotate this CaseDecided on October 6, 2011
Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County
NYCHA Rangel Houses, Petitioner-Landlord,
against
John Groves and Ernest Groves, 159-14 Harlem River Drive, No. 4E New York, New York 10039, Respondent-Tenant.
L & T 17247/2010
SONYA M. KALOYANIDES
Attorneys for Petitioner
250 Broadway
New York, New York 10007
JOHN GROVES
Respondent, pro se
159-14 Harlem River Drive, #4E
New York, New York 10039
ERNEST GROVES
Respondent, pro se
159-14 Harlem River Drive, #4E
New York, New York 10039
Sabrina B. Kraus, J.
BACKGROUND
This summary holdover proceeding was commenced by NYCHA RANGEL HOUSES (Petitioner) seeking to recover possession of Apartment4Eat 159-14 Harlem River Drive, New York, New York 10039 (Subject Premises) based on the allegations that JOHN GROVES and ERNEST GROVES (Respondents), the tenants of record had chronically failed to pay their rent in a timely manner.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Respondents became the tenants of record pursuant to a lease agreement dated April 2005. Respondents have lived in the Subject Premises for most of their lives and took over the tenancy from other family members. Petitioner asserts, that in 2007, three letters were sent to Respondents regarding delinquent payments in rent. In April 2008 a hearing was held at 250 Broadway, at which Respondent Ernest Groves appeared. Mr. Groves testified, that in 2007, he was laid off, and that the other Respondent, his brother, was also unemployed. Mr. Groves [*2]provided documentary evidence of his unemployment to Petitioner in the form of a June 14, 2007 letter from his employer confirming termination of employment.
Mr. Groves testified at the hearing that had applied for public assistance through HRA, and he applied for Social Security Disability benefits. He asserted that the HRA application was viable, and that once it had been finalized, HRA would pay the arrears.
The Hearing Officer left the record open through May 30, 2008, for the Respondents to submit documents from HRA verifying that the application had been approved and that the arrears had been paid.
On May 28, 2008, Respondent submitted documents establishing that his application for public assistance had been approved, but the hearing officer found that because the document did not address arrears, termination was still appropriate, pursuant to a decision and order dated June 2, 2008. The decision noted that through June there was $4321.70 due in arrears and that there was a pending summary proceeding, wherein a stipulation was entered noting that the parties were considering a rent adjustment.
On June 4, 2008, just two days after the hearing officer's decision, HRA issued 6 checks satisfying all outstanding rent arrears and totaling $4855.70. Despite the fact that Petitioner was in possession of the necessary documentation to effectuate the rent adjustment, Petitioner did not adjust Respondents' rent to $132 per month until August 2010. Prior to that Petitioner was charging Respondents either $546 per month or $573.00 per month. As soon as Petitioner adjusted the rent, Respondents were able to and did timely make all current rent payments.
Respondents commenced an Article 78 Proceeding in 2008 seeking to annul the termination of tenancy. The petition was denied based on Respondents' failure to appear for oral argument on March 19, 2009. Respondents sought to vacate the default in April 2009 but Judge Braun declined to sign the Order to Show Cause, holding that Respondents had failed to set forth a showing for the relief requested.
In September 2010, Petitioner served Respondents with a thirty day notice to vacate as a predicate for this proceeding. The petition is dated November 2010 and the proceeding was originally returnable on November 23, 2010. The case was adjourned a number of times pursuant to stipulations by the parties, through September 23, 2011, when Petitioner moved for summary judgment.
In the interim Respondents commenced a second Article 78 proceeding which was denied based on expiration of the statute of limitations.
On September 23, 2011, the Court heard oral argument on Petitioner's motion for Summary judgment and marked the matter submitted.
THE MOTION
Petitioner is "a governmental entity created to provide housing for low-income families in New York City. In accordance with its state and federal powers, NYCHA can take administrative action to terminate tenancies of tenants who are chronically delinquent in the payment of their rent (Gray v Hernandez 22 Misc 3d 678)".
Petitioner's motion for summary judgment is granted only to the extent of entering a judgement of possession against Respondents. However, for the reasons stated below and pursuant to CPLR §2201 the issuance of the warrant of eviction is permanently stayed.
The Court notes that Court records indicate that Petitioner never sued Respondents for nonpayment in Housing Court. Additionally, the Hearing Officer erred in failing to understand that the initial documents showing HRA was approved for Respondents could not address [*3]arrears, but Respondents' statement that all arrears would be paid was accurate and in fact all funds were issued just two days after the hearing officer's decision. Petitioner then failed to appropriately adjust Respondents' rent until the Summer of 2010, and Respondents have paid timely since the rent was adjusted to the appropriate amount.
Given the foregoing, while Petitioner may have technically established a right to a judgment of possession, the record does not support a basis to evict Respondents from their home. Respondents could not control the fact that the arrears checks were not issued prior to May 30, 2008, and in fact the monies were issued only days later. Petitioner offers no explanation for its failure to adjust the rent to an appropriate level based on Respondents' public assistance income.
Chapter V of The NYCHA Management Manuel which sets forth procedures to be followed in the event of a tenant's failure to pay rent provides: At the first sign of rent delinquency, the tenants should be called into the office or interviewed at their apartments by the Housing Assistants in order to ascertain the reason for the delinquency ...Problems contributing to the delinquency should be determined, and, where necessary, referrals made to the appropriate public or private social agencies...
Here Respondent's rent arrears were caused as a result of his job loss. Neither Respondent had any source of income, and all that was needed for the arrears to be cured was for Respondents to obtain public assistance benefits, which he did, and for Petitioner to adjust the rent based on the change in income. While there are still arrears outstanding, that is a result of Petitioner's unexplained delay in providing Respondents with a rent adjustment, and because of the holdover proceeding, Respondents are ineligible to seek assistance of payment of remaining arrears, absent proof of an ongoing right to possession if the arrears are paid.
In this case, Respondents are not intentionally delinquent on their rent but are made delinquent "by continual bureaucratic entanglement (Cabrera v. NYCHA 30 Misc 3d 1231(A))."
"(T)he forfeiture of public housing accommodations is a drastic penalty because for many of its residents, it constitutes a tenancy of last resort [Matter of Holiday v. Franco 268 AD2d 138 (2000)]." Similarly it has been held that "(W)here the circumstances underlying the charges against a tenant no longer exist, eviction of the tenant constitutes a disproportionate penalty [Perez v. Rhea 87 AD3d 476 (2011)]."
In 326-330 East 35th Street Assoc. v. Sofizade the Appellate Term held in pertinent part:
... there may exist circumstances warranting the issuance of a stay of a possessory judgment upon such terms as may be just' in order to avoid forfeiture of a leasehold in this type of eviction proceeding. ... While no bright -line standard can be formulated to determine when and under what circumstances such a stay would be appropriate, factors to be considered include the length of the tenancy, the tenant's payment history... the circumstances and severity of the rent defaults....".
Given the foregoing, the Court holds that the issuance of the warrant is permanently stayed.
This constitutes the decision and order of this Court.
_________________________________________
HON. SABRINA B. KRAUS
Dated: New York, New York
October 6, 2011
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.
