Justice Peter Moulton
Seeking to recoup rent payments, the landlord sought to reverse a decision by New York City’s Housing Authority terminating a Section 8 subsidy that failed to meet federal housing quality standards. The city moved for dismissal of the petition as time-barred, noting that Article 78 proceedings against a public body needed to be begun within four months after a determine became final and binding. The landlord admitted receiving a notice regarding suspension of the subsidy, and called the inspection unit to advise it that the tenant refused access to the premises. The court stated the landlord knew, or should have known, she was an aggrieved party after she stopped receiving payments, as she was warned in an unambiguous NE-1 notice. The court concluded the landlord’s purported contact with the city regarding alleged access problems, and evidence submitted to show attempts to gain accessoccurring more than nine months after termination of the subsidycould not salvage the claim. Accordingly, the court found the petition time-barred, denying landlord’s petition as untimely, and granting the city’s cross-motion for dismissal of the petition to reverse the city’s decision.
