Authority is governed by a housing assistance payments (HAP)
contract under which the latter pays the Section 8 landlord
monthly housing assistance payments from funds allocated by
HUD. These payments constitute the difference between the
total rent due for an apartment leased by the landlord to a
qualified tenant and the rent due by said tenant under the con-
trolling federal regulations. (Citadel Estates, 39 Misc 3d at 883.)
Both sides agree that the plaintiff and the Housing Authority
entered into a HAP contract on or about May 1, 2009. Accord-
ing to the HAP contract, part B, subsection 7, defendant must
make monthly payments so long as the plaintiff complies with
all the provisions of the contract. Part B, subsection 3 (a),
requires the landlord to ‘‘maintain the contract unit and
premises in accordance with the HQS.’’ Subsection 3 (c) provides
that ‘‘if the owner does not maintain the contract unit in ac-
cordance with the HQS . . . the [Authority] may exercise any
available remedies which include the termination of housing as-
sistance payments.’’ Subsection 3 (e) allows the Authority to
inspect the contract unit and premises as the Authority sees fit
93 RALPH v NYCHA LAW DEPT. [41 Misc 3d 692] 695
in accordance with the HQS. Per subsection 3 (f), the Housing
Authority must notify the owner of any HQS defects revealed
by the inspection and the Authority shall not, pursuant to
subsection 3 (d), make any housing assistance payments if the
contract unit does not meet the HQS, ‘‘unless the owner cor-
rects the defect within the period specified by the Authority and
the Authority verifies the correction.’’
It is clear that the HAP contract does not spell out the time
limit in which the Authority must notify the landlord of the