Adams admin says it doesn’t need to enact Council housing voucher law
/
Mayor Eric Adams’ administration argued in a legal filing this week that they are not required to implement legislation expanding the city’s housing voucher program passed by the City Council, which the administration claims overstepped its authority in passing the expansion. File photo by Benny Polatseck/Mayoral Photography Office
By Ryan Schwach
The Adams administration late Tuesday officially asked a judge to dismiss a lawsuit brought against them by the City Council and the Legal Aid Society over the administration’s refusal to implement a law expanding eligibility for the city’s housing voucher program.
Attorneys for the city submitted their official opposition to the lawsuit brought in February this week, arguing that the City Council overstepped its authority when it passed a suite of bills reforming the City Fighting Homelessness and Eviction Prevention Supplement program.
In its filing, the Adams administration claimed that its Department of Social Services, which oversees the CityFHEPS program, has sole authority – given to them by the state – over changing the program’s rules, not the Council. Claiming the expansion will be too costly and ultimately ineffective in its efforts to reduce the number of homeless New Yorkers, DSS Commissioner Molly Parks has decided not to implement the changes passed into law by the Council, the administration said.
“City DSS has declined to undertake rulemaking to implement the four new laws because City DSS, and not the City Council, is empowered to set eligibility criteria for social services housing supplements like CityFHEPS,” the filing read.
The Legal Aid Society, which brought the class action lawsuit, denied the validity of the heart of the administration’s argument on Wednesday.
“The City’s claim that the Council is precluded from legislating on CityFHEPS is baseless and willfully ignores the reality that the Council has done so in the past,” the nonprofit public defense firm said in a statement.
“No administration has the legal authority to cherry-pick which laws they choose to enforce and which they choose to disregard, and we’re committed to ensuring the full implementation of this legislative package, one duly enacted by the City Council, to serve our clients who are in need of safe, long-term and affordable housing,” they added.
The city also argued that the cost imposed by the expansion “would raise significant concerns regarding the curtailment of the budgetary powers of the mayor.”
City Hall estimates the cost of the expansion to hit $17 billion over the first five years of its implementation. The City Council has pegged the figure at around $10 billion.
The fight over the voucher program expansion has raised questions about the powers of the co-equal branches of government.
A Council spokesperson said in a statement on Wednesday that “arguments that the legislative branch is preempted by state law are unfounded and not supported by the plain language of the state social services law or case law.”
“There is a history of the Council legislating on the CityFHEPS program, with laws enacted and implemented by this very administration, that is consistent with state social services law,” the spokesperson said. “The executive branch may disagree with the policy, but that does not constitute a valid legal reason to violate duly enacted laws by not providing New Yorkers experiencing homelessness and at risk of eviction with relief for which they are eligible.”
“Ultimately, this will be resolved by the courts, and we believe they will agree," they added.
The class action lawsuit, which was filed in Manhattan, was brought on behalf of four New Yorkers who’s income makes them eligible for the CityFHEPS program but who have been unable to be accepted into the program as the Adams administration has refused to expand its eligibility, as mandated by law.
The expanded eligibility was passed by the City Council in May of last year only to be vetoed by Mayor Eric Adams about a month later.
In July, the City Council overrode the mayor’s veto, marking the first time, but not the last, the legislature overturned Adams’ rejection of one of their bills.
The laws detailed in the legislative package were supposed to have taken effect on Jan. 9 but have been stymied by the Adams administration after the mayor said the expansion would be too expensive and harm the city’s ability to place homeless New Yorkers in stable housing.
Prior to the passage of the legislation, CityFHEPS vouchers were previously only available to homeless individuals living in the city’s shelters.
The City Council’s suite of bills expanded eligibility to also include New Yorkers facing eviction or those who meet a certain income threshold.
Under the Council’s law, the program is now available to those making 50 percent of the area median income – instead of those making at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level, the previous standard.
The law also expanded the definition of “at risk of eviction” to include households that have received a rent demand letter or termination notice, which comes before eviction proceedings.
An additional reform – the elimination of a 90-day waiting period for shelter residents needed to access the vouchers – was implemented by the Adams administration on its own last year.
The suite of bills also eliminated the requirement that an individual or family prove that they are employed to be eligible for CityFHEPS.
The Legal Aid Society said that their four clients – the plaintiffs named in the class action lawsuit – fit squarely into the city’s expanded eligibility but have thus far been unable to be connected with financial assistance.
They include Marie Vincent, a cancer survivor living in the shelter system with her 12-year-old grandson after her and her family were evicted from their longtime home in the Bronx in May 2023 – the eviction came after a new landlord purchased the building and kicked out all of the tenants, the Legal Aid Society said.
According to the lawsuit, Vincent, who works as a housekeeper at a local hospital, would be eligible for the CityFHEPS program if her eligibility were considered by the AMI standard and not the federal poverty level standard.
Vincent currently makes $48,000 a year, which is nearly $10,000 over the maximum income allowed under the federal poverty level standard. However, 50 percent of the AMI is $56,500.
“If respondent implemented Local Law 100, Ms. Vincent’s income would allow her to obtain a CityFHEPS shopping letter required to secure an apartment,” the lawsuit read.
According to the legal filing, Vincent reduced her hours at the hospital in an effort to meet the income eligibility for the program – the reduced income also made it difficult for her to meet other financial obligations, like buying food for herself and her grandson.
Despite the lessened income, Vincent was again denied acceptance into the program.
In similar circumstances is Alexis Tsahirides, a 25-year-old facing eviction from her Astoria home who is unable to access the housing vouchers. Tsahirides, who recently spoke with the Eagle, was living with her father in Queens, paying him rent. She only recently learned that her father wasn’t using the funds to pay their landlord, but instead pocketing the cash.
With $32,000 in outstanding rent payments, the daughter and father are now facing eviction.
Tsahirides’ attorney, Stephanie Ramdhari, with the Legal Aid Society, hoped that the debt could be paid off through the City Council’s recent CityFHEPS expansion.
“There wouldn't really have been a way for us to resolve the arrears, which meant that we couldn't get the lease in Alexis’ name without the landlord bringing a holdover proceeding against her in housing court to get the apartment back,” Ramdhari told the Eagle earlier this month. “Our impression was that CityFHEPS expansion is going through, and it's going to be great.”
However, once they approached the city in January, they were told Tsahirides would not be eligible under the current rules – however, her attorneys claim that she would be under the Council’s expansion.
Now, if she is unable to pay off the debt or be granted extension in her case by the end of March, her landlord will be able to serve an eviction notice on April 1, her 26th birthday.
