Share This Article
After an appeals court ruled the mayor must implement a package of bills expanding eligibility for CityFHEPS housing vouchers, the Adams administration asked the court for permission to appeal the decision.
Homeless New Yorkers who might be newly eligible for City Family Homelessness and Eviction Prevention Supplement (CityFHEPS) vouchers will have to wait a little longer to see if they’ll be able to secure a subsidy.
After an appeals court ruling last month directed the Adams administration to implement an expansion of the city’s housing voucher program, City Hall chose to request an appeal. The Aug. 11 motion marked almost two years since the administration was due to implement the laws.
The bills expanding the program—which Mayor Adams vetoed in 2023, only to see his veto overridden by the City Council—would have made vouchers available to more people living outside of shelter and increased the income eligibility threshold for CityFHEPS, among other reforms.
A spokesperson for City Hall told City Limits the administration is awaiting the court’s decision on their appeal request before taking any action to implement laws.
The Legal Aid Society and the City Council, who sued to get Adams to implement the laws, condemned the move and filed in opposition to the administration’s motion.
“By requesting permission from the court to appeal this decision, Mayor Adams is once again prioritizing bureaucratic delay over the urgent needs of families facing eviction and homelessness,” said Robert Desir, staff attorney in the Civil Law Reform Unit at The Legal Aid Society, in a statement.
The Adams administration had previously argued that legislating voucher policy was not in the City Council’s purview, and were superseded by the state Department of Social Services’ authority. They also argued that expanding eligibility would further strain a CityFHEPS budget that grew five-fold between 2021 and 2025, and would increase competition for apartments among existing voucher holders.
While a lower court initially sided with Mayor Adams, the appeals court unanimously disagreed last month, writing that the earlier ruling “should be reversed…respondent is directed to implement the Local Laws.”
It’s another jab in an extended fight between the City Council and City Hall.
“The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the Council’s local lawmaking authority and instructed Mayor Adams’ administration to implement these reforms,” said Deputy Council Speaker Diana Ayala in a statement.
“New Yorkers experiencing housing insecurity shouldn’t have to be displaced as a result of the mayor’s failure to act and continued obstruction of the law. Our city and its residents deserve better,” she added.
The CityFHEPS program, which allows qualifying low-income voucher New Yorkers to pay 30 percent of their income in rent, is serving more than 60,000 households. More than 15,000 households moved into housing with a voucher in fiscal year 2025, according to data previously provided by the city’s Department of Social Services.
There are currently 13,000 voucher holders looking for apartments with CityFHEPS, according to City Hall and DSS.
Housing advocates and the City Council cheered the court’s ruling last month, and lamented the further delays.
“Mayor Adams is essentially trying to run out the clock on his administration and not comply with the requirements of the law that the City Council enacted,” said Edward Josephson, an attorney with the Legal Aid Society. “Every month that goes by, vulnerable tenants are being evicted from otherwise affordable apartments because they can’t get CityFHEPS.”
With its decision last month, the court directed the city to submit a plan to implement the laws with the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA).
Because the mayor appealed, the case will be stayed—or held up—until the appellate division rules on the appeal request. There is not a strict timeframe for reviewing appeals, lawyers familiar with the process said.
If the Appellate Division does not permit the appeal, the administration could try a similar motion with the Court of Appeals directly.
“After all the appeals are exhausted, and if the mayor loses, then they would then start from scratch to prepare a plan submitted to OTDA, which would take even more time,” said Josephson.
“People are getting hurt, and it’s not going to be a quick determination,” he added.
To reach the reporter behind this story, contact [email protected]. To reach the editor, contact [email protected]
Want to republish this story? Find City Limits’ reprint policy here.
4 Comments