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
THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION WAS BASED UPON A LEASE ENTERED BY A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY THE ASSETS OF WHICH WERE PURCHASED BY THE TWO DEFENDANT LIMITED LIABILTY COMPANIES; THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE THEORY THAT THE DEFENDANTS CONSTITUTED A “MERE CONTINUATION” OF THE ORIGINAL LESSEE’S BUSINESS; THERE WAS A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).
NYC TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION’S RULES RE: HYBRID AND WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE TAXICABS AND LIVERY VEHICLES UPHELD.
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE COLLAPSE OF A CEILING CAUSED A BULGING DISC IN HER SPINE; SUPREME COURT HELD THE SURGERY TO REPAIR THE DISC CONSTITUTED SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE AND PROHIBITED PLAINTIFF FROM INTRODUCING ANY EVIDENCE OF THE SPINE INJURY; THE 1ST DEPARTMENT REVERSED HOLDING THAT A SPOLIATION ANALYSIS CANNOT BE APPLIED TO MEDICAL TREATMENT (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS TOLD TO PAINT ONLY WHERE HE COULD REACH WITHOUT THE LADDER IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).
ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER HAS A NON-DELEGABLE DUTY TO MAINTAIN THE SIDEWALK WHICH IS NOT DIMINISHED BY HIRING AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR TO WORK ON THE SIDEWALK, PROPERTY OWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
DOCTOR WHO OPERATED A PILL MILL FOR PERSONS ADDICTED TO OPIOIDS PROPERLY CONVICTED OF MANSLAUGHTER FOR OVERDOSE DEATHS (FIRST DEPT).
IN AN ACTION FOR A LICENSE PURSUANT TO RPAPL 881 TO ALLOW PETITIONER ACCESS TO RESPONDENTS’ ABUTTING BUILDING TO FACILITATE CONSTRUCTION WORK ON PETITIONER’S BUILDING, RESPONDENTS ARE ENTITLED TO LICENSE FEES, ATTORNEY’S FEES, ENGINEERING FEES, ETC., ASSOCIATED WITH PROTECTING THEIR BUILDING AND TO COMPENSATE FOR INTERFERERENCE WITH THE USE OF THEIR BUILDING, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THERE IS ANY DAMAGE TO RESPONDENTS’ BUILDING (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE OWNER OF A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTER AND THE SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY THE SHELTER WERE LIABLE FOR THE SHOOTING OF A CHILD JUST OUTSIDE THE GATE OF THE SHELTER, THE CHILD WAS AN INTENDED BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE SHELTER AND THE SECURITY COMPANY (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...