The judge believed that the loss of the property was too severe of punishment and would do everything he could from the bench to overturn every Tax Sale before him. 

Hire an attorney for an unlawful detainer and be done with it.

To reiterate above, the variable rate is not the issue, it's the attempt at new terms with punishment attached if not accepted.FWIW, if I recall correctly from 5 years ago, my loan officer casually mentioned that the loan will be "in-house" which I understood him to mean is not a federally backed loan and they are lending directly, but I didn't ask for clarification.Maybe my loan address was included by mistake for this mailing because of that categorization, but still, gahh.

I was curious, so I checked the Portsmouth civil court records and your name does not show up as a plaintiff in any Unlawful Detainer cases (or any other cases for that matter). 

I love Queens and I love New York but some things here are so backwards.It is WILD to look the other way from negative behavior and punish those who defend themselves and their possessions.

Hard to punish one tenant for the other tenants' actions.

If they fail to file things on time they are often punished by their state BAR association if it is proven. 

One minor exception to the comment: not advisable to lose Section 8 funding which could result both an immediate lose of further rents and/or a squatting/eviction scenario.Next:1) In terms of the late rent payment(s) - consider a 3-Day Notice to "Cure or Quit". 2) If step 1) ineffective, consider the lease type - in many states if month-to-month the lessor has the right to submit "30-Day Notice to Vacate" without cause. 3) If step 2) is ineffective, an Unlawful Detainer (aka Eviction) could be pursued.

Therefore, to deny housing based on a fulfilled obligation is unlawful.

There will be punishing late fees and probably a default interest rate.