In the Matter of Celinet Cruz v. New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), et al.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Public housing/Section 8 subsidy termination and timeliness of Article 78 review.
The Supreme Court, New York County, denied NYCHA's cross-motion to dismiss Celinet Cruz's Article 78 petition as time-barred, allowing the challenge to proceed.
The Appellate Division reversed, granted the cross-motion, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding as untimely.
The four-month limitations period under Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) 217(1) [four-month statute of limitations for Article 78 proceedings] began when Cruz had actual notice of the termination in December 2019 (via or equivalent to the T3 termination notice), not upon NYCHA's July 2024 denial of her restoration request. Subsequent restoration requests and correspondence were mere negotiations, did not reflect a fresh merits review, and did not toll or restart the limitations period.
Background
NYCHA terminated Celinet Cruz’s Section 8 subsidy around December 2019. Cruz was aware of the termination at that time. Over the next years, she repeatedly asked NYCHA to restore her subsidy. NYCHA denied restoration in July 2024. Cruz filed an Article 78 petition in November 2024, challenging the July 2024 denial of restoration rather than the 2019 termination, arguing she had been exhausting administrative remedies.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, New York County (Goetz, J.) denied NYCHA’s cross-motion to dismiss as time-barred, implicitly finding the petition timely in light of Cruz’s restoration efforts.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held that the limitations period began no later than December 2019 when Cruz had actual notice that her subsidy was terminated. Citing precedent that the T3 termination notice triggers the clock and that actual knowledge suffices, the court concluded the period expired by April 30, 2020. Cruz’s later restoration requests were mere ongoing communications that do not extend the statute, and NYCHA’s responses did not constitute a fresh merits review. The court reversed, granted the cross-motion, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that for Section 8 terminations, the Article 78 four-month limitations period runs from the tenant’s receipt of the termination notice or actual knowledge of termination, not from later agency denials of restoration or continued correspondence. Efforts to seek administrative restoration, without a fresh merits determination, do not toll or restart the clock.
Tenants must challenge a Section 8 termination within four months of termination notice or actual knowledge; later restoration requests or negotiations with NYCHA will not extend the deadline.