and how the conditions affected her use and enjoyment of the premises. 227J LLC v Barker (55 Misc 3d
145[A], 58 NYS3d 876 [App Term 1st Dep't 2017]). Further, as she testified there are no
current problems in her apartment there is no basis for the court to issue an order to correct.
The remaining and critical question raised by Respondent in her two "jurisdictional
defenses"[FN7]
and her first, third and fourth affirmative defenses is whether Petitioner was entitled to charge her
a market rent beginning March 1, 2017 due to her failure to relocate from her 3-bedroom
apartment to the 2-bedroom apartment she was offered in another building in the Crotona Park
Complex. This court has jurisdiction to determine the propriety of Petitioner's actions in
terminating Respondent's subsidy after she refused to accept the relocation apartment and then
charging her a market rent. 1199 Hous Corp v McCartney (171 Misc 2d 239, 656 NYS2d
592 [App Term 1st Dep't 1997]); E Harlem Pilot Block Bldg 1 HDFC v Cordero (196
Misc 2d 36, 763 NYS2d 203 [Civ Ct NY Co 2003]) and cases cited therein.
It is undisputed that applicable to this proceeding are the provisions of HUD Handbook
4350.3 REV-1: Occupancy Requirements of Subsidized Multifamily Housing Programs
(hereinafter HUD Handbook), issued on June 12, 2003 and thereafter amended a number of [*12]times including on June 29, 2007 ("Change-2"). See, e.g., Henry Phipps Plaza S Assoc Ltd,
Partnership v Quijano (137 AD3d 602, 26 NYS3d 701 [1st Dep't 2016], rev'g for
reasons set forth in dissenting op of Schoenfeld, J, 45 Misc 3d 12, 14, 993 NYS2d 428 [App
Term 2014]); Green Park Associates v Inman (121 Misc 2d 204, 205, 467 NYS2d 500,
501 [Civ Ct Kings Co 1983]).