554-558 W. 181 Street, LLC, the petitioner in this proceeding (“Petitioner”) commenced this summary proceeding against Hope Cochrane, the respondent in this proceeding (“Respondent”) seeking a money judgment and possession of 554 West 181st Street, Basement Apartment (“the subject premises”) on the basis of nonpayment of rent. Respondent interposed an answer. The Court held a trial of this matter on August 27, 2018 and adjourned the matter to September 7, 2018 for post-trial submissions. The Court then granted Respondent’s motion to submit a late post-trial memo on September 21, 2018.The subject premises is subject to the Rent Stabilization Law. A history of registrations of the subject premises with the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (“DHCR”) pursuant to 9 N.Y.C.R.R. §2528.3 purports to show a legal regulated rent for the subject premises of $2,500.00. The petition pleads that the rent for the subject premises is $1,915.00. The rent demand seeks payment of arrears based on a rent of $1,915.00. A lease in evidence between Petitioner, Respondent, and another tenant commencing January 30, 2017 and expiring May 30, 2018 shows a monthly rent of $3,000.00 a month (“the lease with the higher rent”).Petitioner’s director of leasing (“the leasing director”) testified that Respondent needed assistance paying rent and wanted a lease with a lower rent so that the New York City Human Resources Administration (“HRA”) would pay her rent. A two-year lease in evidence between Petitioner and Respondent commenced on December 1, 2017 with a monthly rent of $1,213.00 (“the lease with the lower rent”). At some point, Petitioner received $800.00 a month from HRA through a program known as the Special Exit Prevention Supplement (“SEPS”). Respondent testified that she had the understanding that SEPS would pay $1,213.00 a month, which is what she requested from Petitioner. This testimony is consistent with the testimony of the leasing director, except that the leasing director testified that her understanding was that Respondent would not be the only tenant of the subject premises.In order to obtain SEPS, a tenant must, inter alia, present to HRA a lease with a rent that does not exceed $1,213.00 for a household of one. 68 R.C.NY §§8-12(a)(1)(D)(i), 8-13(a)(1). The SEPS program seeks to house residents of homeless shelters. 68 R.C.NY §8-12(a)(1)(A). The Court draws the inference that SEPS regulations require a lease in order to assure that payment of benefits pursuant to SEPS actually will maintain a beneficiary of the program in his or her home. Petitioner’s pursuit of a judgment against Respondent for nonpayment of rent greater than the lease with the lower rent, in the best light, undermines this purpose and, in the worst light, constitutes fraud on HRA. See SSL §145-b(1)(a)(defining welfare fraud as, inter alia, a deliberate concealment of any material fact to attempt to obtain payment from public funds for services). Either way, awarding Petitioner a judgment based upon a rent that is greater than the lease with the lower rent would effectively countenance such conduct.1Instructively, when a landlord received rent payments from the New York City Department of Homeless Services (“DHS”) pursuant to a prior program to subsidize rents, Housing Stability Plus, that landlord could not obtain a judgment against its tenant for nonpayment of a higher rent from another lease that the landlord entered into with the tenant that the landlord did not disclose to DHS. Assoc. v. CW, 24 Misc 3d 1225(A)(Civ. Ct. Bronx Co. 2009). Similarly, a landlord who enters into a Housing Assistance Payment contract with a local housing authority subsidizing a tenant’s rent according pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1437f, commonly known as the Section 8 program, may not obtain a judgment based upon a subsequent lease for a higher amount. Crutchley v. Costa, 2001 NY Slip Op. 40475(U),
