Per Curiam

Read Full-Text Decision

Receiver appealed from an order conditionally granting Section 8 tenant’s motion to be restored to possession upon paying receiver arrears, tenant’s share of the full contract rent for April 2017 and legal fees in a nonpayment summary proceeding. The panel found under the subject facts herein there was no abuse of discretion in granting post-eviction relief to tenant upon her payment of her share of rent arrears. Her share of unsubsidized rent for April 2017 and attorney fees receiver was due. It found good cause sufficient to warrant tenant’s restoration to possession was shown by receiver’s impermissible demand for the full HPD contract rent—far in excess of tenant’s Section 8 share of the subject rent—and noted despite appointment of a receiver, HPD continued sending correspondence to the building owner and prior building manager. The panel stated that absent a showing by landlord of a new agreement, a Section 8 tenant did not become liable for Section 8 share of rent as “rent” even after the subsidy was terminated. As there was no showing of a new lease agreement entered into by the parties obligating tenant to pay full contract rent, a nonpayment proceeding did not lie to recover the Section 8 portion of the rent from tenant. Hence, the order was confirmed.

Per Curiam

Read Full-Text Decision

Receiver appealed from an order conditionally granting Section 8 tenant’s motion to be restored to possession upon paying receiver arrears, tenant’s share of the full contract rent for April 2017 and legal fees in a nonpayment summary proceeding. The panel found under the subject facts herein there was no abuse of discretion in granting post-eviction relief to tenant upon her payment of her share of rent arrears. Her share of unsubsidized rent for April 2017 and attorney fees receiver was due. It found good cause sufficient to warrant tenant’s restoration to possession was shown by receiver’s impermissible demand for the full HPD contract rent—far in excess of tenant’s Section 8 share of the subject rent—and noted despite appointment of a receiver, HPD continued sending correspondence to the building owner and prior building manager. The panel stated that absent a showing by landlord of a new agreement, a Section 8 tenant did not become liable for Section 8 share of rent as “rent” even after the subsidy was terminated. As there was no showing of a new lease agreement entered into by the parties obligating tenant to pay full contract rent, a nonpayment proceeding did not lie to recover the Section 8 portion of the rent from tenant. Hence, the order was confirmed.