Milford Redevelopment & Housing Partnership v. Glicklin, 228 Conn. App. 593 (2024)

Citation: Milford Redevelopment & Housing Partnership v. Glicklin, 228 Conn. App. 593 (2024)
Parent Document: Milford Redevelopment & Housing Partnership v. Glicklin, 228 Conn. App. 593 (2024)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2024-10-15
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10136084/milford-redevelopment-housing-... ↗

Full Text

2,327 chars

The defendant’s argument rests on 42 U.S.C. § 1437d
       (k), which provides in relevant part: ‘‘The Secretary [of
       Housing and Urban Development] shall by regulation
       require each [PHA] receiving assistance under this
       chapter to establish and implement an administrative
       grievance procedure under which tenants will—(1) be
       advised of the specific grounds of any proposed adverse
       public housing agency action; (2) have an opportunity
       for a hearing before an impartial party upon timely
       request within any period applicable under subsection
       (l); (3) have an opportunity to examine any documents
       or records or regulations related to the proposed action;
       (4) be entitled to be represented by another person of
       their choice at any hearing; (5) be entitled to ask ques-
       tions of witnesses and have others make statements on
       their behalf; and (6) be entitled to receive a written
       decision by the public housing agency on the proposed
       action. . . .’’ In other words, § 1437d (k) instructs the
       Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to
       develop regulations setting forth the requirements, stan-
       dards and criteria for grievance procedures established
       and implemented by PHAs.
         Title 42 of the United States Code, § 1437d (l), in
       turn, provides in relevant part: ‘‘Each public housing
       agency shall utilize leases which . . . (4) require the
       public housing agency to give adequate written notice
       of termination of the lease which shall not be less than
       (A) a reasonable period of time, but not to exceed 30
       days—(i) if the health or safety of other tenants, public
       housing agency employees, or persons residing in the
       immediate vicinity of the premises is threatened . . .
       and (C) 30 days in any other case, except that if a State
       or local law provides for a shorter period of time, such
       shorter period shall apply . . . .’’
         We now turn to the defendant’s specific claim on
       appeal: that the plaintiff’s pretermination notice is juris-
       dictionally defective in that it provides her with a ten
Page 12                        CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                   0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (60)

Full Text