35-41 Clarkson LLC v. New York City Housing Authority

Civil Rights

New York Law Journal


Judge P. Kevin Castel

In their putative class suit under 42 USC §1983, Section 8 landlords alleged the New York City Housing Authority's (NYCHA) noncompliance with 42 USC §1437f and 24 CFR Part 982—and its contracts with them—denied plaintiffs' procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Contrary to Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) contracts NYCHA purportedly failed to timely notify plaintiff landlords of Housing Quality Standards (HQS) violations, failed to follow its procedures to allow plaintiffs' cure of the violations before suspension of rent payments, and failed to reinstate payments retroactive to the HQS violations' remedy. The court dismissed suit for failure to state a claim finding plaintiffs entitled only to post-deprivation proceedings available in state court. Discussing Lujan v. G & G Fire Sprinklers Inc. and Campo v. N.Y.C. Emp.'s Ret. Sys. the court found the three factors set out in Mathews v. Eldridge favored a holding that a post-deprivation state-court action was sufficient to satisfy due process. Although interpretation of plaintiffs' HAP contracts, in a state court Article 78 proceeding, may require reference to federal law, that alone was not enough to create a private right of action under 42 USC §1437f and 24 CFR Part 982.

What's being said

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1202580551924

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.