Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Turk v. Phelps
(Onondaga County Ct., NY filed, Dec. 2002) ; Clearinghouse Number: 55087
Description
Section 8 Tenant Appeals Ruling Limiting Rent Abatement to Month When Landlord Claimed Nonpayment
Abstract
Section 8 tenant in New York in an eviction action for nonpayment
of rent is appealing a city court ruling limiting rent abatement to
the month when landlord claimed nonpayment. In March 2002 landlord
refused to repair tenant’s apartment because she still had
Christmas lights up. In April the premises failed the Section 8
program’s housing quality inspection. The program ceased
paying its portion of the $600 rent in July. Tenant paid no rent in
July, and landlord commenced a nonpayment proceeding alleging that
tenant owed $600 for July rent. The court determined that, since
the Section 8 program was no longer paying tenant’s rent, the
program’s provisions no longer governed, and tenant was
required to pay the full contract rent. The court granted a $350
rent abatement for July only. On appeal, tenant argues that
landlord’s refusal to make necessary repairs for a reason not
justifiable under the statute entitled her to rent abatement for
each month during which landlord breached his obligations under the
warranty of habitability. Tenant also appeals the ruling that she
must pay the Section 8 program’s share of the rent. Citing a
federal regulation that the family is not responsible for the
portion of the rent covered under the contract between owner and
housing authority, tenant argues that landlord may not unilaterally
change the lease terms when tenant holds over. Tenant asserts that
the law abhors forfeiture of a leasehold where landlord acts
unconscionably.
