Respondent alleges, without contradiction, that the subject building was previously owned by the City of New York and managed by tenants through the Tenants Interim Lease Program. Paragraph 4 of the deed from the City to petitioner (see exhibit "B" to respondent's motion) specifically states that the HDFC "...shall operate the Disposition Area solely as a housing project for persons or families of low income, in accordance with Article XI of the Private Housing Finance Law." Respondent also states that the building's transfer was approved by both the Mayor's Office and the Department of Housing Preservation and Development, that the sale of the property was approved by the City Council, and that the City retains an interest in the property until July 1, 2029. Respondent's counsel argues that because of these facts, state action is involved, and consequently the government is sufficiently entwined with the subject premises to trigger constitutional due process protections.