麻豆视频

Paul, Weiss secured the dismissal of a holdover eviction proceeding against a pro bono client who is a tenant of a Housing Development Fund Corporation (HDFC) low-income cooperative in New York City.

After our client had obtained court directives against her landlord to restore gas service to her apartment and civil penalties for housing code violations, her landlord purportedly issued her a notice of non-renewal of her tenancy in April and May 2024, stating that her tenancy would be terminated at the end of August 2024. The landlord asserted no reason for the non-renewal. In September 2024, the landlord initiated a holdover eviction proceeding against our client, citing no cause for the eviction other than our client鈥檚 failure to vacate the premises. Paul, Weiss filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the proceeding.

New York City Housing Court Judge Adam Meyers granted the motion, agreeing that our client鈥檚 landlord, as a low-income HDFC cooperative, was sufficiently entwined with the government as to be subject to due process requirements. Judge Meyers found that the landlord鈥檚 certificate of incorporation included provisions similar to those relied upon in previous HDFC due process cases and that no certificate of incorporation for a low-income HDFC cooperative like that of our client鈥檚 landlord could be filed without explicit government approval. Judge Meyers rejected the landlord鈥檚 arguments that government involvement was not substantial enough to impose due process obligations, finding that the government鈥檚 involvement reflected in the certificate of incorporation alone established that the state was sufficiently entwined with the landlord鈥檚 operations as a matter of law.

After determining that the landlord was subject to due process requirements, the court found that our client was entitled to notice of the reason for her eviction. Judge Meyers held that, because neither the notice of non-renewal nor the eviction petition itself alleged any cause, the proceeding must be dismissed.

The Paul, Weiss team included litigation associates Natalie Pita, who argued the motion for summary judgment, and Eric Stern. The matter was supervised by, among others, litigation partner Daniel Toal.