DECISION AND ORDER After careful consideration of the papers submitted and the arguments heard, respondent’s motion seeking an order granting summary judgment in favor of respondent, based upon her claim of succession to the subject premises from her late mother, is granted. The facts and procedural history are as follows. Petitioner commenced this summary holdover proceeding on the basis that respondents are licensees of the tenant of record, Georgeanne Davis, whose license expired upon her death on or about November 5, 2017. Further, respondents have “no independent right to the subject premises as the unit was subject to an HPD Regulatory Agreement and Low Income Home Tax Credit with a Shelter Plus Care and project based Section 8 subsidy, for which you do not qualify.” (see 10 day Notice to Quit) The subject premises is a rent stabilized unit in a building that is governed by the above noted regulatory agreement, dated November 16, 2005 between the owner and the City of New York. The majority of the tenants in the building qualify for various income based subsidy programs, which assist them with their rent and other relevant needs. The program was designed to provide low income housing, especially for those that were homeless. Georgeanne Davis moved into the rent stabilized premises pursuant to a lease dated January 1, 2009. She received the Continuum of Care Shelter Plus Care subsidy for her rent through HPD Section 8. In or about 2016, respondent Love Davis moved into the premises to care for her mother. Section 8 was notified and she was added to the household composition. Georgeanne Davis died in November 2017. Upon her death, her Section 8 subsidy terminated. Respondent’s request to succeed to her mother’s subsidy was denied by HPD pursuant to an order dated March 23, 2018. The order determined that she did not qualify for the subsidy and as a result she was required to pay the entire contract rent for the premises. Ms. Davis’ appeal of the decision via an Article 78 was orally denied on September 4, 2018. In the interim, respondent also sought succession to the subject rent stabilized premises. Upon petitioner’s failure to offer a lease, respondent filed a lease violation complaint with the DHCR. The DHCR, upon petitioner’s failure to reply, granted respondent’s request and directed petitioner to offer a renewal lease. The decision dated September 11, 2019 was not appealed by petitioner. The instant proceeding first appeared on the court’s calendar on June 24, 2019. It was adjourned several times for respondent to seek counsel which she eventually retained. The matter was thereafter adjourned for motion practice. The instant motion brought by respondent for summary judgment on respondent’s claim for succession was argued before the court on December 11, 2019 and submitted for decision. After careful consideration of the arguments heard and the papers submitted, respondent’s motion is granted as to her claim of succession. The subject premises is registered as a rent stabilized apartment. Pursuant to the September 11, 2019 order of the DHCR, respondent was granted succession rights to the premises. Therefore, she is not a licensee, whose rights expired upon the death of her mother, the former tenant of record, but a person with independent rights to the premises. That she undisputedly did not qualify to succeed to her mother’s Section 8 Continuum of Care Shelter Plus Care Rental Subsidy, does not bar her from succeeding to her mother’s rent stabilized apartment. There is no specific provision in the Regulatory Agreement or lease that Petitioner can point to that bars her from succeeding to the premises, even though she does not qualify for the rental subsidy that her mother had. As the DHPD order dated March 23, 2018 states, respondent’s only penalty for not qualifying for the rent subsidy in this matter, is that she is required to pay the entire contract rent for the premises. Petitioner must comply with the order of the DHCR to provide respondent a lease. Accordingly, based upon the foregoing, the proceeding is dismissed without prejudice. This constitutes the decision and order of the court. Dated: January 6, 2020 Bronx, New York Submitted after Oral Argument heard on Wednesday, December 11, 2019 Start: 10:35:42 End: 10:50:30
