## Facts

- A.S. and her husband lived in an apartment subsidized by a Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher issued under the Housing Act of 1937.
- The New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) administered the Section 8 program in New York City.
- After a domestic-violence incident in which A.S. alleged her husband attempted to rape her, A.S. sought to keep the subsidy without him.
- In 2015, A.S. submitted a request to HPD to transfer the household’s voucher to her (as a “remaining family member”) so she could continue receiving assistance.
- HPD scheduled and held an administrative hearing regarding the request and the household’s continued eligibility, but A.S. alleged she received no notice and therefore could not participate.
- Following that hearing, HPD denied the transfer request and terminated the voucher, citing the domestic-violence incident, and informed A.S. only after the decision was made.
- A.S. sued HPD Commissioner Vicki Been in her official capacity, asserting (among other theories) a procedural due process claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a claim under the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA).
- Defendants sought dismissal, arguing that A.S. had no protected property interest because the voucher was issued to her husband and that HPD’s actions were outside the FHA’s reach.

## Issues

1. Whether A.S., though not the original voucher holder, plausibly alleged a constitutionally protected property interest in continued Section 8 assistance sufficient to invoke Fourteenth Amendment due process protections.
2. Whether A.S. plausibly alleged a procedural due process violation where HPD held a hearing without notifying her and terminated assistance without giving her a meaningful chance to be heard.
3. Whether A.S. plausibly stated an FHA claim based on HPD’s alleged treatment of her voucher-transfer request and the termination of assistance in connection with the domestic-violence incident.
4. Whether the complaint could proceed against the Commissioner in her official capacity (i.e., as a claim against the municipal agency) at the pleading stage.

## Decision

- The court treated the defendants’ arguments as a motion to dismiss and evaluated whether the complaint plausibly stated claims for relief.
- The court held that termination of Section 8 voucher assistance can implicate a protected property interest and that A.S.’s allegations were sufficient at the pleading stage, even though the voucher had been issued in her husband’s name.
- The court denied dismissal of A.S.’s procedural due process claim, concluding that alleging no notice of the hearing and no opportunity to participate plausibly described constitutionally inadequate process in connection with the denial and termination decision.
- The court allowed the FHA claim to proceed at least in part, finding the allegations sufficient at the motion-to-dismiss stage to connect HPD’s actions in administering housing assistance to conduct potentially covered by the FHA.
- The court dismissed certain other claims or theories that were not adequately pleaded or were not legally supported, while permitting the case to go forward on the core due process and surviving FHA allegations.

## Legal Principles

- Continued receipt of Section 8 housing assistance, once granted and used to subsidize rent, may constitute a property interest protected by the Due Process Clause.
- When the government deprives a person of a protected property interest, due process generally requires notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.
- On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true and asks whether they plausibly state a claim for relief.
- A plaintiff may proceed under § 1983 for deprivation of constitutional rights, including procedural due process, based on the termination of public benefits without adequate procedures.
- Official-capacity claims against a municipal officer are treated as claims against the municipal entity administering the program.
- The FHA can reach discriminatory conduct in the provision of housing-related benefits and services, including decisions affecting access to, or continuation of, housing assistance.

## Conclusion

A.S. v. Been holds that a Section 8 household member seeking to retain voucher assistance after a domestic-violence incident plausibly alleged a protected interest in continued benefits and stated a procedural due process claim where HPD allegedly held an unnotified hearing and terminated assistance without giving her a meaningful opportunity to be heard; the court also permitted the FHA claim to proceed in part while dismissing other insufficiently supported theories.


A.S. v. Been, 228 F. Supp. 3d 315 (2017)