Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Borger Management, Inc. v. Sindram, 886 A.2d 52 (2005)

Citation
Borger Management, Inc. v. Sindram, 886 A.2d 52 (2005)
Parent Document
Borger Management, Inc. v. Sindram, 886 A.2d 52 (2005)
Jurisdiction
DC (municipal)
Effective Date
2005-10-14

Other Sections in This Document (74)

Full Text

725 chars
This finding is further reflected in the ALJ’s conclusion of law that petitioner Sin-dram “failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that Respondent retaliated against him ... in that the alleged retaliation action by Respondent — not to renew the Section 8 lease for Petitioner’s unit — is permitted by law.” The foregoing finding and conclusion of the ALJ are most reasonably read to constitute a ruling that the landlord’s right to decline to renew the federal Section 8 contract prevails over inconsistent local statutes, which are effectively preempted by the federal law creating the HAP or Section 8 program. California Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Guerra, 479 U.S. 272, 280-81, 107 S.Ct. 683, 93 L.Ed.2d 613 (1987).