Opinion
No. 570273/11.
2012-05-15
MPLAZA, LP, Petitioner–Landlord–Cross–Appellant, v. Diana CORTO, and Kathryn Stomsvik, Christian Stomsvik, and Christian Stomsvik, Respondents–Tenants.
Tenant Corto appeals from that portion of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Arlene H. Hahn, J.), entered March 3, 2011, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing that branch of the nonpayment petition which sought rent accruing from January 2010. Landlord cross-appeals from so much of the aforesaid order as granted tenant summary judgment dismissing the petition insofar as it sought rent allegedly accruing during calendar years 2006 and 2007.
Present: SHULMAN, J.P., HUNTER, JR., TORRES, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Order (Arlene H. Hahn, J.), entered March 3, 2011, modified by dismissing so much of the nonpayment petition as seeks recovery of rent arrears in excess of the Section 8 tenant's share of the rent, and as so modified, affirmed, without costs.
The nonpayment petition, to the extent that it sought recovery of arrears in excess of the Section 8 tenant's share of the rent, should have been dismissed. “Absent a showing by landlord of a new agreement, and none was shown here, a Section 8 tenant does not become liable for the Section 8 share of the rent as ‘rent’ even after the termination of the subsidy” ( see Pinnacle Bronx W., LLC, v. Jennings, 29 Misc.3d 61 [2010], quoting Prospect Place HDFC v. Gaildon, 6 Misc.3d 135[A], 2005 N.Y. Slip Op 50232[U] [2010] ). Nor can any of the relevant provisions of the governing HUD Handbook be read to authorize the tenant's eviction in the circumstances here present ( see HUD Handbook 4350.3 REV–1, § 7–8[D][3][f] ).
The issues raised on landlord's cross appeal, not having been briefed, are deemed abandoned.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.