sufficiently "entwined" with the government to trigger the respondent's due process rights. In
512 East 11th Street HDFC v. Grimmet the city oversaw the petitioner's activities and
operation, monitored its building management skills, set initial rents, approved subsequent rent
increases and had to approve the commencement of holdover proceedings.
Thus, the city is so entwined' with the conduct of the program as to constitute significant and
meaningful governmental participation, triggering constitutional due process guarantees (citation
omitted). One of those guarantees is that a tenant is entitled to notice of the alleged cause for
eviction and procedural due process in the determination of whether cause exists. Eviction ***
requires a cause other than mere expiration of the lease' (citation omitted). Since the petitioner
did not allege any cause for removal of the tenant, the petition was properly dismissed.
Id. at 581 NYS2d 26 {181 AD2d 492}
While it has been held that tenants who sublease apartments from a state agency are entitled
to a due process hearing when the state intends to refuse to renew their subleases, even when the
state is a lessee and not the owner of the property, (see, Fuller v. Urstadt, 28 NY2d 315,
321 NYS2d 601),
such is not the case here. The petitioner here is not the state, and unlike the petitioner
HDFC in Grimmet, supra , can lease premises, enter into subleases, etc., without prior
government approval and the city does not retain " a right of reversion in the event the landlord
fails to abide by the terms and conditions placed upon the property and its use." Id. at
581 NYS2d 25
The petitioner attests to the fact that it has no written contract with OMH, receives no federal