You are here: / / HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION SECURITY DEPOSIT VOUCHERS MUST BE ACCEPTED...
, , ,

HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION SECURITY DEPOSIT VOUCHERS MUST BE ACCEPTED IN LIEU OF CASH DEPOSITS; TO REFUSE TO ACCEPT THE VOUCHERS VIOLATES THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW; THE VOUCHER PROGRAM DOES NOT VIOLATE THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW OR THE URSTADT LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Webber, determined plaintiff Estates, a leasing agent for multi-family apartment buildings in New York City, must accept a Human Resources Administration (HRA) security deposit voucher for an apartment. When the potential tenant, Walters, applied for an apartment, plaintiff’s employee told her the security deposit must be cash:

We find that the court correctly concluded that HRA’s security deposit vouchers are a “lawful source of income” under the City HRL [Human Rights Law] (Administrative Code § 8-102) and are therefore included in the HRL’s prohibition against discrimination by a landlord against a prospective tenant because of “any lawful source of income” (Administrative Code § 8-107[5][a][1]). “The term lawful source of income’ includes income derived from social security, or any form of federal, state or local public assistance or housing assistance including section 8 vouchers” … .

Administrative Code § 8-107(5) prohibits a landlord from refusing to accept a Section 8 voucher from an existing tenant or refusing a lease to a prospective tenant who seeks to pay rent with a Section 8 voucher … . …

Supreme Court correctly found that HRA’s security deposit voucher program does not violate Social Services Law § 143-c. * * *

Finally, we find that the voucher program does not violate the Urstadt Law (McKinney’s Uncons Laws of NY § 8605). “The Urstadt Law was intended to check City attempts, whether by local law or regulation, to expand the set of buildings subject to rent control or stabilization'” … . Here, a landlord’s acceptance of such security deposit vouchers “will have no impact in expanding the buildings subject to the rent stabilization law or expanding regulation under the rent laws” … . Estates NY Real Estate Servs. LLC v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 03093, First Dept 5-28-20

 

You might also like
A PHOTOGRAPH OF DEFENDANT WITH A HANDGUN TAKEN SIX WEEKS BEFORE THE SHOOTING WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE AS TENDING TO SHOW HIS IDENTITY AS THE SHOOTER (FIRST DEPT).
GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 5-321 VOIDS A LEASE PROVISION ABSOLVING THE LANDLORD OF LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE TO A TENANT’S PROPERTY CAUSED BY THE LANDLORD’S NEGLIGENCE, BUT DOES NOT VOID A LEASE PROVISION ABSOLVING THE LANDLORD OF LIABILITY FOR THE TENANT’S LOST PROFITS CAUSED BY THE LANDLORD’S NEGLIGENCE (FIRST DEPT).
THE PROOF THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS MAILED TO DEFENDANT WAS INADEQUATE AND THE NOTICE DID NOT INCLUDE A STATEMENT REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1304; THEREFORE THE BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE THAT NEW YORK’S PROPERTY TAX SYSTEM DISCRIMINATES AGAINST PROPERTY OWNERS IN “MAJORITY-MINORITY” NEIGHBORHOODS; COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A PROSPECTIVE JUROR WHO SAID HE WAS ‘NOT SURE’ HE COULD BE IMPARTIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
PETITIONER, WHO WAS GRANTED A LICENSE TO ENTER RESPONDENT’S PROPERTY UNDER RPAPL 881 TO MAKE REPAIRS ON PETITIONER’S PROPERTY (OTHERWISE NOT ACCESSIBLE), WAS REQUIRED TO PAY RESPONDENT A LICENSE FEE.
THE CONTRACT OF SALE INCLUDED THE PURCHASER’S AGREEMENT TO FORFEIT THE DOWN PAYMENT IF SHE DID NOT CLOSE ON THE AGREED DATE; THEREFORE THE SELLERS WERE ENTITLED TO THE DOWN PAYMENT; UNJUST ENRICHMENT CANNOT BE CLAIMED IN THE FACE OF A WRITTEN AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT IN THIS ELEVATOR ACCIDENT CASE WAS NOT A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, HE HAD BEEN QUALIFIED AS AN EXPERT IN 120 CASES; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE SUMMARILY DISQUALIFIED HIM (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE EXISTENCE OF A HANDRAIL ON THE LEFT OF THE STAIRS DID NOT WARRANT GRANTING... RETURN OF THE CHILDREN TO MOTHER AFTER A TEMPORARY REMOVAL WAS NOT SUPPORTED...