in subsection 3 (d) of the contract by issuing a memo, that was
not produced by either party, which mandates that the results
of an inspection be mailed to the landlord on the next business
day.
It is well established that a challenge to an administrative de-
cision of the Housing Authority must be brought in a CPLR
article 78. (Citadel Estates, LLC v New York City Hous. Auth.,
39 Misc 3d 880 [Sup Ct, Kings County 2013]; 1543-75 Nostrand
Assoc. v Flowers, NYLJ, Apr. 21, 1994 at 26, col 2 [App Term, 2d
Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 1994]; Rowe v New York City Hous.
Auth. Law Dept., Civ Ct, Kings County, Sept. 30, 2010, Levine,
J., index No. CV-029455-10; Vincenzi v Strong, 16 Misc 3d
1121[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51534[U] [Civ Ct, Bronx County
2007]; 1801 Weeks Ave. v Crawford, 182 Misc 2d 251 [Civ Ct,
Bronx County 1999].) The courts have repeatedly found that a
challenge to the Housing Authority’s suspension of monthly
Section 8 payments to the landlord must be brought via an
article 78 proceeding in Supreme Court. (See Citadel Estates, 39
Misc 3d at 885; Matter of 12th & 14th Street Inv., LLC v New
York City Hous. Auth., 2013 NY Slip Op 30696[U] [Sup Ct, NY
County 2013]; 1440 G. Pac. Realty Corp. v New York City Hous.
Auth., Civ Ct, Kings County, Aug. 25, 2010, index No. 046636/
10; Undercliff Holding LLC v New York City Hous. Auth., Civ
Ct, NY County, Jan. 22, 2010, index No. 32831/09; 960 Sherman
Ave. Assoc. v New York City Hous. Auth., Civ Ct, NY County,
Sept. 16, 2009, index No. 010190/09.) This is because it is the
controlling regulations, and not the HAP contract, which gov-
ern the Housing Authority’s ability to make HAP payments
contingent upon the apartment’s meeting HQS as established
by HUD (24 CFR 982.401, 982.404 [a]). Similarly, it is the