A Manhattan judge on Thursday handed the Adams administration a major victory in its bitter battle with the City Council over controversial changes to the housing voucher program.
Mayor Eric Adams vetoed a City Council-proposed expansion of the city’s rental assistance program, called CityFHEPS, that would have allowed for the quick issuance of vouchers to tenants facing eviction, but council members overrode the veto and sued the mayor to go ahead with the expansion.
But Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Lyle E. Frank ruled that only state governments had the authority to expand voucher programs, to Adams’s delight.
“While we are pleased that the Court agreed with the Department’s view that these laws exceed the City Council’s legislative authority, we hope that our partners on the Council will join us in remaining committed to providing safe, affordable, permanent housing to New Yorkers in need,” Adams said in a written statement.
City council members disagree with the ruling and plan to appeal immediately, a spokesman said in a statement.
“It is disappointing that in the midst of a housing crisis, Mayor Adams’ administration has sought to delay assistance to prevent eviction and homelessness for New Yorkers,” the spokesperson said.
The lawmakers joined a class action lawsuit filed in February by the Legal Aid Society and four other plaintiffs seeking to force Adams to comply with the expanded CityFHEPS.
The new law would have allowed people facing eviction to access housing vouchers without having to stay in a shelter for at least 90 days and raised the income threshold for receiving assistance, while prohibiting landlords from deducting utility costs from vouchers.
When Mayor Adams vetoed the bill in June 2023, he argued that the city could not afford the bill’s $17 billion cost because of the ongoing migrant crisis.
City Council members disputed the mayor’s cost estimate for the bill, saying it would cost $10 billion, and overrode the mayor’s veto later that summer.
Commissioners argued that the severity of the city’s housing vacancy rate justifies the cost of an expanded program.
