Judge Steven Weissman

 

Read Full-Text Decision

Soto moved to dismiss landlord’s summary holdover proceeding arguing collateral estoppel and failure to state a cause of action. It alleged in the underlying holdover proceeding that Soto failed to maintain her Section 8 subsidy thus, violating a substantial obligation of her tenancy. Soto noted there was a similar proceeding by the prior landlord that was dismissed, basing the collateral estoppel claim on same. Yet, the court noted the prior decision was superceded upon reargument, and the court found the first decision was null and void, thus collateral estoppel was inappropriate. But, it found the subsidy was suspended by HPD due to the failed HQS inspections in three consecutive years as the prior owner failed to maintain the premises in good repair. Also, while the notice to cure alleged Soto violated her lease and the HAP contract, the court noted Soto was not a party to the HAP contract, thus, could not have violated its terms and conditions. Further, the court stated landlord attempted to make the failure of its predecessor and itself in failing to maintain the premises in good repair grounds for Soto losing her home of 34 years, but same was not a ground for terminating the tenancy, and the predicate notice was defective. Hence, Soto was granted dismissal.

Judge Steven Weissman

 

Read Full-Text Decision

Soto moved to dismiss landlord’s summary holdover proceeding arguing collateral estoppel and failure to state a cause of action. It alleged in the underlying holdover proceeding that Soto failed to maintain her Section 8 subsidy thus, violating a substantial obligation of her tenancy. Soto noted there was a similar proceeding by the prior landlord that was dismissed, basing the collateral estoppel claim on same. Yet, the court noted the prior decision was superceded upon reargument, and the court found the first decision was null and void, thus collateral estoppel was inappropriate. But, it found the subsidy was suspended by HPD due to the failed HQS inspections in three consecutive years as the prior owner failed to maintain the premises in good repair. Also, while the notice to cure alleged Soto violated her lease and the HAP contract, the court noted Soto was not a party to the HAP contract, thus, could not have violated its terms and conditions. Further, the court stated landlord attempted to make the failure of its predecessor and itself in failing to maintain the premises in good repair grounds for Soto losing her home of 34 years, but same was not a ground for terminating the tenancy, and the predicate notice was defective. Hence, Soto was granted dismissal.