The regulatory agreement petitioner signed promises that necessary repairs be made within
12 months of closing. Stone states in his affidavit that the apartment failed the HQS inspection
on February 26, 2008, and that he asked petitioner to make all necessary repairs within 30 days
of the failed inspection. Stone states that the repairs were never made. Stone then advised
petitioner to contact NYCHA when the repairs were made, but petitioner has not done so.
According to Stone, petitioner's failure to submit the certification to NYCHA and to make the
[*4]repairs violated petitioner's regulatory agreement with HUD.
Further, under NYCHA's interpretation of 12 USC § 1701 2-11c (B) 3, according to Stone,
the rent must remain at the HUD level until the premises meet federal HQS so that a Section 8
voucher will protect respondent from displacement for an alleged nonpayment of rent. A
landlord's failure to pass HQS inspections will delay the subsidy, a delay "not within
respondent's control." (Townhouse W.
LLC v Williams, 19 Misc 3d 847, 851 [Hous Part, Civ Ct, NY County 2008].)
An agency's interpretation of the statute under which it functions is "entitled to the greatest
weight" (Matter of Coffey v Joy, 91 AD2d 923, 924 [1st Dept 1983] [internal quotation
marks omitted]), and will be upheld if it is "not unreasonable or irrational." (Matter of Salvati
v Eimicke, 72 NY2d 784, 791 [1988]; accord Matter of 300 W. 49th St. Assocs. v NY
St. Div. of Housing & Community Renewal, 212 AD2d 250, 255 [1st Dept 2009].) Judicial
deference for an agency's interpretation is owed when at stake is the " specialized knowledge and
understanding of underlying operational practices or . . . an evaluation of factual data and