Justice Cynthia Kern
Tenant Duncan sought to challenge a decision made by Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) revoking her Section 8 subsidies. HPD cross-moved to dismiss the petition arguing it was time-barred. Duncan sent an application to HPD for its Section 8 program, and subsequently more documentation, attaching a letter requesting she not be deemed eligible for the subsidy. HPD informed Duncan she was qualified for a Section 8 voucher, but sent an official termination letter revoking the voucher stating Duncan “refused offer.” Duncan sought reevaluation of the application. The court granted HPD’s cross-motion to dismiss finding Duncan’s Article 78 petition was time-barred as she did not commence same within the four month statutory period, but nearly eight years after her time to file expired. Further, the court stated even if the petition were found timely, it must still be dismissed as Duncan’s prior Article 78 proceeding was dismissed without prejudice to permit her to provide the court with proof HPD was required to determine Duncan’s middle income status for a landlord sponsored program, but she had yet to do so.
