actual control over its ability to comply with the terms of the settlement, nonpayment
summary eviction cases typically revolve completely around the question of when and
whether DSS will [*3]pay the arrears.[FN2]
This court has often remarked that, ideally, a representative from DSS with some
kind of authority should be present in every courtroom. Short of that, at least for those
situations when a tenant is requesting a court order extending their time to pay arrears,
the court should be able to easily reach a representative from DSS who could explain
with exactitude the status of the application, what steps are required (if any) for the
application process to move forward, and the timeframe for that process.[FN3]
For those situations where a tenant's arrears are higher than what DSS will/can/wants to
pay, it makes sense to this court for DSS to negotiate directly with the owner (it does
not), rather than instruct (as is typical) the tenant to "lower arrears owed." How exactly
does DSS expect a low-income New Yorker to do that, particularly when the proceeding
is already at a point where the tenant is on the cusp of eviction?[FN4]
CONCLUSION
Considering the foregoing, the court finds that there is good
cause sufficient to restore Respondent to possession of the apartment. Petitioner will be
paid all the rent through March 2025 as well as almost all its alleged legal fees.
Respondent will also be required to pay April rent. The court declines to require the
payment of any additional fees. It is worth noting that while prior cases have noted that
the owner being "made whole" is a factor that appellate courts have considered when
reviewing a court's decision to restore a tenant to possession post-eviction (e.g. 591 Realty, LLC v Jenkins,