subsidy for the assisted apartment effective January 2011. While
not addressed by plaintiff, the Housing Authority indicates that
696 41 MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS, 3d SERIES
on February 23, 2011, it again inspected the apartment and
found that two serious HQS violations existed, including the
preexisting violation of mouse droppings. By NE-1 letter dated
March 9, 2011, the Authority notified the landlord that it would
suspend the subsidy on March 25, 2011, unless the repairs were
made within 20 days of the inspection. If the landlord failed to
comply, the Authority would offer the family a voucher to en-
able them to seek other housing and would terminate the HAP
contract without further notice if the family was approved for a
transfer. On June 16, 2011, the subject premises passed an
inspection and the Authority lifted its payment suspension for
the apartment on July 1, 2011.
On or about October 4, 2011, the Housing Authority was
served with a summons and complaint for unpaid housing
subsidies from January through June 2011. The complaint al-
leges that the Authority ‘‘breached the HAP contract by
suspending the Section 8 payments without following the notice
procedure.’’ Rather than sending the NE-1 notice on December
6, 2010, as required by the memo,* defendant mailed the letter
28 days after the inspection. The notice was received by plaintiff
on January 7, 2011, making it virtually impossible for plaintiff
to make the necessary repairs prior to December 28, 2010 when
the Housing Authority was supposed to reinspect, or to avoid
suspension of payments. The complaint avers that plaintiff was
thus damaged by the wrongfully suspended subsidy payments
and incurred various consequential damages to the extent of
$25,000.
Discussion