By: Ling-Cohan, J.P., Gonzalez, Cooper, JJ.19-020. 2013 AMSTERDAM AVENUE HOUSING ASSOCIATION, L.P., pet-lan-res, v. DARREN KING, res-ten-app — Final judgment (Laurie L. Lau, J.) entered December 20, 2017, reversed, without costs, and final judgment directed in favor of tenant dismissing the petition.The notice of termination underlying this holdover proceeding alleged that tenant breached the Section 8 lease agreement by engaging in a pattern of conduct that adversely affects the health and safety of other building residents, including causing recurrent instances of flooding into the units below, and refusing to allow landlord access to effect repairs. The notice further alleged that“…during the ten (10) calendar days following the date this Notice was hand delivered or the day after this Notice was mailed, whichever is earlier, you may request of the Landlord to discuss the proposed termination of your tenancy, and upon your request, the landlord may agree to discuss this with you.” (emphasis added)Significantly, the notice did not inform tenant, who is a paraplegic, wheelchair-bound, double-amputee who requires a colostomy bag, that he could request a reasonable accommodation to participate in the hearing process.The HUD Handbook and the governing Section 8 lease agreement set forth the requirements for the termination of a tenancy. Among other requirements, Sections 8-13(B)(2)(c)(4) and 8-13(B)(2)(c)(5) of the Handbook specify that the Notice of Termination must advise tenant that “he/she has 10 days within which to discuss termination of tenancy with the owner” and that “persons with disabilities have the right to request reasonable accommodations to participate in the hearing process.” Paragraphs 17(b) and 23(e) of the HUD lease specify that if tenant requests a meeting to discuss the proposed termination, the landlord “agrees” to meet with the tenant. In other words, the landlord must agree to meet with tenant.The Notice served by landlord did not comply with the above-mentioned HUD requirements, since it incorrectly informed tenant that landlord “may” meet with him to discuss the proposed termination when, in fact, landlord was required to participate in any requested pretermination meeting. Furthermore, the notice failed to inform the severely disabled tenant that he could request a reasonable accommodation. In such form, the notice was not reasonable in view of the attendant circumstances (see generally Oxford Towers Co., LLC v. Leites, 41 AD3d 144 [2007]), since the combined defects eviscerated the procedural safeguards intended to prevent improper termination of a Section 8 tenancy (see Matter of Henry Phipps Plaza S. Assoc. v. Quijano, 137 AD3d 602 [2016], revg for reasons stated in dissenting op of Schoenfeld, J., 45 Misc 3d 12 [App Term, 1st Dept 2014]). Thus the notice was insufficient to serve as a predicate for this eviction proceeding.Contrary to landlord’s claim, tenant’s objection to the sufficiency of the notice was timely raised and was not waived (cf. 433 W. Assoc. v. Murdock, 276 AD2d 360 [2000]).We note, also, that in view of tenant’s disabilities and the serious conduct at issue, that the parties should explore reasonable accommodations that will enable tenant to fulfill his lease obligations and avoid eviction, i.e., ongoing supportive services and suitable monitoring (see Matter of Prospect Union Assoc. v. DeJesus, 167 AD3d 540 [2018]). This may even include, if warranted, the commencement of a proceeding by an appropriate party for the appointment of a Mental Hygiene Law article 81 guardian.In view of our disposition, we reach no other issue.THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.March 22, 2019
By: Shulman, P.J., Ling-Cohan, Edmead, JJ.14-249. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, res, v. PHILIP JEAN LAURENT, def-app — Judgment of conviction (Kevin B. McGrath, J.), rendered August 14, 2013, affirmed.The verdict convicting defendant of two counts of second-degree harassment (see Penal Law §240.26[1]) was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility. Defendant’s intent to harass, annoy or alarm complainant may be inferred from his conduct in the two domestic disputes at issue (see People v. Mack, 76 AD3d 467 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 922 [2010]). In the first incident, defendant became angry at and hit complainant, his live-in companion, grabbed her neck and smacked her cheek so hard that her dentures flew out of her mouth; in the second incident, defendant got on top of complainant as she lay in bed, stated “no other bitch” was going to send him to jail, and started punching and hitting complainant, and grabbing her throat. The fact that the court acquitted defendant on other charges does not require a different conclusion (see People v. Gutierrez, 91 AD3d 491 [2012]).THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.March 22, 2019
