Lynn housing dispute to be reviewed again

LYNN – The state’s highest court has sent a long-running dispute between public housing officials and a former tenant back to a hearing officer for review and resolution.The decision by a majority of Supreme Judicial Court justices gives Pamela Carter the opportunity to argue again that the Authority did not have cause to remove her housing assistance subsidy.Five justices who sided with Carter wrote in their decision “that a tenant’s interest in her public housing tenancy ‘is a protected interest, entitling her to fair procedures before the government can terminate it.'”James Breslauer, the Neighborhood Legal Services attorney who represented Carter, said the court ordered the new hearing conducted under “very strict guidelines.””It’s up to the Housing Authority to schedule it,” he said.Attempts to reach Authority attorney Webb Primason Thursday were unsuccessful.Carter’s battle with the Housing Authority dates back to 2002 when, as a tenant receiving rent assistance, she moved out of an apartment where the landlord claimed she caused damage in excess of normal wear and tear.The landlord won a $1,400 judgment against Carter in small claims court and notified housing officials of the judgment. The Authority moved to terminate her subsidy.Breslauer said the Authority and the landlord took action against Carter after she won a judgment against the landlord for overcharging her on rent. A hearing officer upheld the termination decision and Carter filed an appeal in Housing Court and won the right to keep her subsidy.The Authority challenged the housing decision in Appeals Court and won the appeal in April 2006. The court ruled that although Carter denied she committed the damage, she offered no reasons why Authority action less severe than termination of her subsidy should be imposed.Neighborhood Legal Services took the Appeals ruling to the SJC last June only to have six justices announce they were split over the case. The Appeals Court ruling stood until Gov. Deval Patrick named a seventh justice to succeed the late Martha Sosman and the court once again took up Carter’s case.The justices said the Authority’s argument that the hearing officer was not required to consider ‘all relevant circumstances’ in Carter’s case “misses the mark.””It is clear that, in a case such as this, the decision of a hearing officer must, at a minimum, demonstrate that he is aware of his discretionary authority to take all relevant circumstance into account, and indicate whether he either did or did not choose to exercise that discretion,” the justices wrote.Justices Roderick Ireland and Francis Spina sided with the Authority, concluding that the hearing officer “considered evidence of mitigating circumstances presented by the plaintiff.”