inferences to be drawn therefrom.'" (Roberts v Tishman Speyer Properties, L.P., 2009
NY Slip Op 07480 [U], 2009 WL 3378513, *6 [Ct App, Oct. 22, 2009] [quoting Matter of KSLM-Columbus Apts., Inc. v
NY St. Div. Of Hous. & Community Renewal, 5 NY3d 303, 312 [2005] [internal
quotation marks omitted].) The U.S. Housing Act regulates sales of multi-family dwellings from
HUD and is designed to keep tenants with Section 8 subsidies in place after an HUD building is
sold to a private investor. Stone's conclusion that petitioner has a duty to facilitate the conversion
process is consistent with the Act's regulatory scheme.
Respondent provides an affidavit stating that repairs were not made. Respondent's affidavit
is corroborated by Stone's affidavit and by the apartment's failing the HQS inspection on
February 26, 2008. Petitioner, on the other hand, argues that it made the repairs when it bought
the building in 2004 and that a failed inspection in 2008 is insufficient to show that repairs were
never made. Singer's affidavit states that petitioner performed the necessary repairs within 12
months of closing, but Singer's affidavit is conclusory. It fails to provide any detail about the
alleged repairs, such as when repairs were made, who made them, or even what repairs were
made.
Respondent's motion for summary judgment is granted on two grounds. First, petitioner
failed to comply with the conversion process. This delayed the process almost three years, from
May 2003 until April 2007. Petitioner does not dispute that it failed to comply with the
conversion process, and therefore respondent's allegations are deemed true. (See
Zuckerman, 49 NY2d at 562.) The second ground for granting respondent's motion for