tach, requires the Authority to notify it of the defects within
one day. Plaintiff tacitly admits that the Authority created this
document and that it is not incorporated into the HAP contract.
Plaintiff cannot recast the gravamen of its complaint as one
in contract merely because the HAP contract requires that a
landlord be notified of HQS violations. The HAP contract itself
is a creation of the federal regulations. It is clear that the HAP
contract does not spell out the time limit in which the Author-
ity must notify the landlord of the HQS defects or how much
time the Authority must give the landlord to cure the defects
before it stops making HAP payments. Rather, it is up to the
discretion of the Authority as to when it sends out the notice
and how many days it gives a landlord to cure the defects before
it will suspend the Section 8 subsidies. This is precisely the type
of decision which must be challenged through an article 78
proceeding. (See DDEH 291 Pleasant, LLC v Reinert, 2009 NY
Slip Op 32790[U] [Sup Ct, NY County 2009] [where the Depart-
ment of Housing Preservation and Development had a choice
whether to reduce housing assistance payments it abused its
discretion, rather than violating the contract, when it decided to
suspend subsidy payments rather than terminating contract].)
An article 78 proceeding may only be brought in the Supreme
Court. (CPLR 7804 [b]; Matter of Sovocool v David, 7 AD2d 262,
266 [3d Dept 1959]; Matter of Voccola v Shilling, 88 Misc 2d
103, 109-111 [Sup Ct, Kings County 1976].) The Civil Court
lacks jurisdiction to hear appeals of government actions, which,
as set forth above, must be brought pursuant to article 78 in
Supreme Court. (Fuca v City of New York, 15 Misc 3d 86, 87
700 41 MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS, 3d SERIES