Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Landlord & Tenant
Landlords' Due Process Claim Against Housing Authority Dismissed
35-41 Clarkson LLC v. New York City Housing Authority
NYLJ 12/7/12, p. 21, col. 3
U.S. Dist Ct., SDNY
(Castel, J)
In an action pursuant to 42 USC section 1983 brought by landlords participating in the Section 8 housing program, the New York City Housing Authority moved to dismiss. The court granted the housing authority's motion, holding that post-deprivation proceedings in state court were enough to protect landlord's property interests.
Landlords asserted that the housing authority suspends rent payments to participating landlords when it determines that the landlord does not comply with housing quality standards. The contracts landlord have with the housing authority gives a landlord the right to cure defects within 30 days of the inspection, but landlords contend that the housing authority, upon identifying violations, does not notify landlord in a timely manner, and fails to reinstate rent payments even after violations are notified. Landlords also complained that the housing authority has no grievance procedure for landlord to challenge these failures. Landlords argued that the housing authority's actions constitute a deprivation of landlords' property rights without due process of law.
In dismissing the complaint, the court first questioned whether the government contract between landlords and the housing authority created a property interest protected by procedural due process. The court, however, declined to resolve that issue because it concluded that post-deprivation judicial relief was sufficient to meet the requisites of due process. The court noted that landlord could bring an article 78 proceeding in state court to challenge the housing authority's decisions, and also might have a breach of contract claim in state court. Because landlord's interests were purely monetary, and the risk of erroneous deprivation is minimal, the court held that the availability of post-deprivation proceedings satisfied due process obligations.
Landlords' Due Process Claim Against Housing Authority Dismissed
35-41 Clarkson LLC v.
NYLJ 12/7/12, p. 21, col. 3
U.S. Dist Ct., SDNY
(Castel, J)
In an action pursuant to 42 USC section 1983 brought by landlords participating in the Section 8 housing program, the
Landlords asserted that the housing authority suspends rent payments to participating landlords when it determines that the landlord does not comply with housing quality standards. The contracts landlord have with the housing authority gives a landlord the right to cure defects within 30 days of the inspection, but landlords contend that the housing authority, upon identifying violations, does not notify landlord in a timely manner, and fails to reinstate rent payments even after violations are notified. Landlords also complained that the housing authority has no grievance procedure for landlord to challenge these failures. Landlords argued that the housing authority's actions constitute a deprivation of landlords' property rights without due process of law.
In dismissing the complaint, the court first questioned whether the government contract between landlords and the housing authority created a property interest protected by procedural due process. The court, however, declined to resolve that issue because it concluded that post-deprivation judicial relief was sufficient to meet the requisites of due process. The court noted that landlord could bring an article 78 proceeding in state court to challenge the housing authority's decisions, and also might have a breach of contract claim in state court. Because landlord's interests were purely monetary, and the risk of erroneous deprivation is minimal, the court held that the availability of post-deprivation proceedings satisfied due process obligations.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.