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
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION REGULATING PROTESTS BY ANIMAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES AGAINST A CENTRAL PARK HORSE-DRAWN CARRIAGE SIGHTSEEING BUSINESS UPHELD, BUFFER ZONE PROVISION MODIFIED TO COMPORT WITH FIRST AMENDMENT (FIRST DEPT).
APARTMENTS RECEIVING TAX BENEFITS PURSUANT TO RPTL 421-g ARE SUBJECT TO THE LUXURY VACANCY DECONTROL PROVISIONS OF THE NYC RENT STABILIZATION LAW AND WERE PROPERLY DEREGULATED (FIRST DEPT).
THE 30-DAY NOTICE PROVISION IN THE MORTGAGE DID NOT PRECLUDE ACCELERATING THE DEBT BY THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE NULLIFIED THE ACCELERATION (FIRST DEPT).
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF NEGLECT AND DERIVATIVE NEGLECT FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE FOOD, CLOTHING AND SHELTER; EVIDENCE SUPPORTED EDUCATIONAL NEGLECT AND DERIVATIVE NEGLECT, DESPITE MOTHER’S HOME-SCHOOLING EFFORTS, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT). ​
LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE ACCIDENT WAS RELATED TO MATERIAL ON THE FLOOR WHICH CAUSED THE WHEELS OF A CART PLAINTIFF WAS PUSHING TO GET STUCK; DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE FLOOR WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED (FIRST DEPT).
Arbitrator’s Ruling that, Under the Terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, a Bus Driver Could Not Be Disciplined for Sexual Harassment While He Was On Union-Paid “Release Time,” Violated the Public Policy Prohibiting Sexual Harassment in the Workplace
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DID NOT PRODUCE AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT WAS PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL EMPLOYER; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S PERSONAL INJURY ACTION WAS PRECLUDED BY HIS ELECTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS (FIRST DEPT).
UNDER THE TERMS OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY AGREEMENT, THE ESTATE OF A DECEASED MEMBER OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (LLC) WAS NOT A MEMBER OF THE LLC AND THEREFORE COULD NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE RUNNING OF THE LLC OR INSPECT ITS BOOKS AND WAS NOT OWED A FIDUCIARY DUTY (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...