for an apartment, called a "contract rent," and a share of the rent that NYCHA determines that a
tenant can afford. See 24 C.F.R. §982.1(a), Soumas v. Gregg, 57 Misc 3d 135(A)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2017).
The evidence shows that, of the MCR of $800.74, Respondent's share is $279.00 and NYCHA's
share is $521.74.[FN2]
Even though Petitioner cannot obtain a judgment against Respondent for nonpayment of
NYCHA's share of the rent, Soumas, supra, 57 Misc 3d at 135(A), Pinnacle Bronx W., LLC v. Jennings,
29 Misc 3d 61 (App. Term 1st Dept. 2010), Prospect Place HDFC v. Gaildon, 6 Misc 3d 135(A)(App. Term 1st
Dept. 2005), the ledger bases Respondent's arrears on a monthly rent liability of $440.44 rather
than Respondent's share of $279.00. The ledger further credits payments of $558.44 every month
from May of 2017 through February of 2019.[FN3]
If Respondent's share of the rent as per Section 8 was only $279.00, the ledger's use of $440.44
implicates its reliability. Even if the Court disregards the amount charged as per the ledger and
only considers the rent credits, the ledger does not make clear whether the monthly credits of
$558.44 per month are payments from Respondent. If they are, then they would be accruing a
credit to be applied to his outstanding balance pre-dating Respondent's Section 8 subsidy and
thus would affect the amount of a judgment Petitioner would be entitled to.
If, however, as seems likely, the ledger's monthly credits of $558.44 reflect NYCHA's
payments of the Section 8 share of the rent, the ledger's continued billing of $440.44 raises
troubling questions. Does Petitioner's continued billing Respondent at a rate of $440.44 a month
mean that Petitioner continues to receive a tax abatement covering the difference between