1212 Grand Concourse LLC v. Ynguil, 27 Misc. 3d 205 (2010)

Citation: 1212 Grand Concourse LLC v. Ynguil, 27 Misc. 3d 205 (2010)
Parent Document: 1212 Grand Concourse LLC v. Ynguil, 27 Misc. 3d 205 (2010)
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Effective Date: 2010-01-08
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6311119/1212-grand-concourse-llc-v-ynguil/ ↗

Full Text

1,181 chars

This court also rejects the proposition that dismissal of these proceedings would generate an unconscionable result because it would mean that the respondents would then “remain in the subject premises virtually rent free (being responsible for only the minimal portion of rent not covered by the section 8 subsidy).” (1801 Weeks Ave. v Crawford, 182 Misc 2d 251, 255 [1999]; affirmation 11 5, contained in notice of cross motion, dated Oct. 30, 2009.) In the first place, as pointed out above (see n 2, supra), such a generalization fails because the respective portions of the total rent paid by Section 8 and a tenant vary according to the family income. Thus it is not necessarily true that the respondents would live rent free. Ultimately, the argument is flawed because it portrays the landlords, rather than the tenants, as victims, when all along the petitioner landlords have held within their hands the power to restore their right to receive the Section 8 portion of the rent; they need simply to do what they are obliged to do — that is, correct the HQS violations. Their claims that they would be inordinately penalized is a bit like the culprit who blames the victim.

Other Sections in This Document (40)

Full Text