summary judgment has two elements. After petitioner's period of noncompliance, repairs were
not made, an allegation that must be deemed true because petitioner has not come forward with
proof to rebut respondent's detailed allegations. (Id.) Even if petitioner had made the
repairs, however, the dispute over the Section 8 subsidy is not between petitioner and
respondent. A Section 8 tenant — or here, a would-be Section 8 tenant — is not
responsible for paying the Section 8 portion of the rent. (24 CFR 982.451 [b] [4] [iii] ["The
family is not responsible for payment of the portion of rent to owner covered by the housing
assistance payment under the HAP [Housing Assistance [*5]Payments] contract between the owner and the PHA [Public
Housing Authority — in this case, NYCHA Section 8]."]; 24 CFR 982.310 [b] [1] [same
quotation]; Vincenzi v Strong, 2007 NY Slip Op 51534 [U], *2, 16 Misc 3d 1121 [A]
[Civ Ct, Bronx County, Aug. 13, 2007].) Even if petitioner had effected repairs as stated in
Singer's affidavit, therefore, its dispute about the HQS inspection and repairs is between
petitioner and NYCHA.
Petitioner has demanded rent of $972.00 a month, and respondent has paid $188.00 a month
since petitioner bought the building. It is unclear why respondent paid petitioner $215.00 a
month in rent for 52 months, but is it clear, on the motion for summary judgment, that
respondent was liable only to pay $188.00 a month. Respondent is awarded a money-only
judgment for $1404.00. Respondent is not entitled to punitive damages. Respondent does not
show that petitioner's conduct was so outrageous that it "evinced a high degree of moral
turpitude and demonstrated such wanton dishonesty as to imply a criminal indifference to civil