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
EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CASES ARE REVIEWED UNDER “NOTICE PLEADING” STANDARDS WHERE ONLY FAIR NOTICE OF THE NATURE OF THE CLAIM AND ITS GROUNDS ARE REQUIRED; HERE PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATION THAT A SUPERVISOR STATED SHE RECEIVED HIGH EVALUATIONS BECAUSE SHE ENGAGED IN SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH HER SUPERIORS WAS SUFFICIENT TO SURVIVE DISMISSAL (FIRST DEPT).
PENAL LAW 220.39(1) AND 220.16(1) DO NOT REQUIRE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SPECIFIC DRUG INVOLVED; ONLY KNOWLEDGE THAT THE SUBSTANCE IS A “NARCOTIC DRUG” IS REQUIRED; THEREFORE PENAL LAW 220.16(1) AND 21 USC 841(1)(A) ARE “STRICTLY EQUIVALENT” OFFENSES FOR PURPOSES OF A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER ADJUDICATION (FIRST DEPT)
HOLDOVER RENT IN AN AMOUNT THREE TIMES EXISTING RENT CONSTITUTED APPROPRIATE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, NOT A PENALTY; DEFENDANT, THE SELLER OF THE COOPERATIVE APARTMENT, REQUESTED POSSESSION FOR THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE CLOSING (FIRST DEPT).
THERE WAS CONFLICTING EVIDENCE WHETHER PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD NO MEMORY OF THE ACCIDENT, FELL FROM AN A-FRAME LADDER OR A SCAFFOLD, BOTH WERE DEEMED INADEQUATE SAFETY DEVICES AND PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
A MINOR INJURY TO ONE CHILD BY ANOTHER WHILE MOTHER WAS NAPPING NEARBY, AND A SUBSEQUENT VERBAL ARGUMENT WITH THE POLICE, DID NOT AMOUNT TO NEGLECT BY MOTHER (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO MOVE TO REOPEN SUPPRESSION HEARING BASED ON NEW EVIDENCE LEARNED AT TRIAL CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE.
Impeachment of Defendant With a Statement Made by Defendant’s Attorney Deemed Proper
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE PROPERLY GRANTED BASED UPON CONVENIENCE OF WITNESSES (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...