household as a pretext for requiring her to transfer to a two-bedroom apartment, the evidence
instead establishes that Respondent exaggerated her complaints about the condition of the
relocation apartment as a pretext for refusing to transfer out of her 3-bedroom apartment.
Respondent's rambling, often nonresponsive and sometimes conflicting answers to questions
only further undermined her credibility.
In sum, upon determining that Respondent was over-housed, Petitioner properly notified her
that she would have to move to the relocation apartment or else lose her HUD subsidy and be
responsible for paying the HUD approved market rent, which was $1415 at the time. Upon
Respondent's failure to move, her subsidy ended, leaving her responsible to pay the
HUD-approved market rent as stated in paragraph 19(b) of her lease and the relevant sections of
the HUD Handbook.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the court grants the Petition and awards Petitioner a final judgment of
possession and a money judgment for $27,110.62 against Respondent Chantay Williams,
representing all rent owed through July 2019. This judgment is without prejudice to any claims
Petitioner may have for rent and/or use and occupancy which accrued after July 2019. As there
was no testimony regarding any "John Doe" or "Jane Doe", the proceeding is dismissed as
against them. Issuance of the warrant of eviction is stayed five days, pursuant to RPAPL §
732(2). This constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court, copies of which are being mailed
to the parties' respective attorneys forthwith. The parties may pick up their documents that were
submitted into evidence as trial exhibits from the Part T Clerk (in either Room 409 or 410 at 851