(a) Owners and managers of multifamily housing projects having accessible units shall adopt suitable means to assure that information regarding the availability of accessible units reaches eligible individuals with handicaps, and shall take reasonable nondiscriminatory steps to maximize the utilization of such units by eligible individuals whose disability requires the accessibility features of the particular unit. To this end, when an accessible unit becomes vacant, the owner or manager before offering such units to a non-handicapped applicant shall offer such unit:
(1) First, to a current occupant of another unit of the same project, or comparable projects under common control, having handicaps requiring the accessibility features of the vacant unit and occupying a unit not having such features, or, if no such occupant exists, then
(2) Second, to an eligible qualified applicant on the waiting list having a handicap requiring the accessibility features of the vacant unit.
(b) When offering an accessible unit to an applicant not having handicaps requiring the accessibility features of the unit, the owner or manager may require the applicant to agree (and may incorporate this agreement in the lease) to move to a non-accessible unit when available.
Notes of Decisions
Telesca v. Long Island Hous. P'ship, Inc., 443 F. Supp. 2d 397 (E.D.N.Y 2006).
· cites it 2× “24 C.F.R. § 8.27 . Telesca contends that these regulations are applicable to the units sold by the defendants because the definition of “multifamily housing project” in the regulations does not specifically limit its use to “rental units.”
Liddy v. Cisneros, 823 F. Supp. 164 (S.D.N.Y. 1993).
· cites it 2× “” 24 C.F.R. § 8.27 (a). Thus, under the regulations -the owner must first offer a handicap accessible unit to a handicapped person already living in the same project but in a non-aecessible apartment.”
Adapt of Philadelphia v. Philadelphia Hous. Auth., 417 F.3d 390 (3rd Cir. 2005).
“Pursuant to Paragraph C, PHA had a duty to “take reasonable non-discriminatory steps to maximize the utilization of [the units created under Paragraph B] by eligible households that include an individual whose disability requires the accessibility features of the particular…”
Adapt of Philadelphia v. Philadelphia Hous. Auth., 433 F.3d 353 (3rd Cir. 2006).
“” 2 *356 Paragraph C of the Agreement required PHA to “take reasonable non-discriminatory steps to maximize the utilization of [the units created under Paragraph B] by eligible households that include an individual whose disability requires the accessibility features of the…”
Three Rivers Ctr. for Indep. Living, Inc. v. Hous. Auth., 382 F.3d 412 (3rd Cir. 2004).
“25 (c) (requiring housing authorities to promulgate and implement a “needs assessment” and “transition plan”), and 24 C.F.R. § 8.27 (a) (requiring housing authorities to make disabled persons aware that accessible units are available and ensure that accessible units are utilized…”
ADAPT v. Phila Hous. Auth (3rd Cir. 2005).
“Pursuant to Paragraph 5 C, PHA had a duty to “take reasonable non-discriminatory steps to maximize the utilization of [the units created under Paragraph B] by eligible households that include an individual whose disability requires the accessibility features of the particular…”
ADAPT v. Phila Hous. Auth (3rd Cir. 2006).
“”2 Paragraph C of the Agreement required PHA to “take reasonable non-discriminatory steps to maximize the utilization of [the units created under Paragraph B] by eligible households that include an individual whose disability requires the accessibility features of the particular…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.