Matter of Daniel Fair v. Kalman Finkel

In Matter of Daniel Fair v. Kalman Finkel et at., 284 A.D.2d 126, (1st Dept. 2001) respondent Housing Authority followed the same defective procedure for notice of termination that it followed in this case. It failed to send the initial warning letter, as required by the Williams Consent Decree, sending only the "T-1" and "T-3" letters. There was overwhelming evidence that the petitioner in Fair was just as aware of the endangered status of her Section 8 rent subsidy as the petitioner here. The Fair motion court, as desirous of applying common sense and experience to the facts in Fair as is this court, affirmed the Housing Authority's termination of benefits. The Appellate Division, however, reversed the motion court and remanded for a hearing as to the merits of the proposed termination of the Section 8 benefits. It made that determination on the basis of a strict construction and application of the notice requirements in the Williams Consent Decree. The court observed, in that case: "The Williams Consent Decree provides that a termination of a Section 8 subsidy shall be made only after a determination in accordance with the procedures and provisions herein. Those procedures require that the participant be advised of the specific grounds for termination of benefits and expressly provide for mailing of a warning letter, Notice of Termination, which must be served by both regular and certified mail, and a Notice of Default. There is no showing that NYCHA has complied with these procedures in this case; on the contrary, the record reflects that NYHA mailed only two of the three required notices and that none of the notices were served by certified mail. Absent proof that NYCHA complied with the required procedures, its termination of petitioner's Section 8 subsidy was in violation of lawful procedure." (Fair at 129.)