Santos v. Hendrickson

In Santos v. Hendrickson, N.Y. Law Journal, February 1, 1993, at 34, col. 4 (City Ct., Yonkers), the court had occasion to consider another analogous situation. In Santos, the petitioner commenced a non-payment proceeding to recover possession of a Section 8 subsidized apartment. Both parties appeared before the court and entered into a stipulation granting the petitioner judgment. The respondent, represented by Westchester/Putnam Legal Services, subsequently moved to vacate the judgment and dismiss the petition. Because the landlord's having accepted rent above the Section 8 amount was considered a wrong of sufficient magnitude, the requested relief was granted: "Petitioner does not deny that he demanded and accepted more than $ 1,600.00 in rent from the tenant over and above the rent established by the Housing Authority. Petitioner does not deny that he sent respondent a letter, in July 1991, demanding respondent pay $ 364.00 as the respondent's portion of the rent commencing August 11, 1991, at a time when the respondent's legal portion of the rent effective on that date was the amount of $ 287.00. Petitioner makes no explanation for these apparent overcharges.... It is evident that the petitioner comes to this proceeding with unclean hands. Whether his actions constitute "fraud or duress" or "mistake" need not be determined in order to decide the motion I before the Court. It is evident that circumstances warrant the intervention of the Court to vacate the stipulation in order to avoid a harsh and unjust result."