The Curtis Cofield II Estates, as viewed from Legion Avenue. Credit: Thomas Breen photos
A view from the interior parking lot.
One tenant of a brand new West River apartment complex saw her eviction case withdrawn Tuesday, while two of her neighbors saw their eviction cases continued to next month.
Those households are just three of 22 at the 56-unit Curtis Cofield II Estates that have been hit with eviction lawsuits in recent months — as a host of allegations of nonpayment of rent have now landed in housing court.
State court records show that some of the Curtis Cofield tenants facing eviction lawsuits have alleged miscommunication on the landlord’s part as leading to their lapse in payments.
The landlord, an affordable housing developer, and its management company have stated that to date no tenants have actually been kicked out of their homes. They’ve asserted that they don’t plan to actually evict any of these residents — despite filing these lawsuits.
“It was very nerve-wracking,” one tenant — who moved into her Curtis Cofield apartment last April, and who has since had her eviction lawsuit withdrawn — said of the process. “I couldn’t get comfortable because I was just in a situation where I was homeless.”
She said that other tenants are worried. “Everybody is hysterical because they’re thinking, ‘Where are we gonna live?’”
The Curtis Cofield II Estates is a complex of 11 townhouse-style buildings containing 56 all-electric apartments, bounded by Legion Avenue, Ella T. Grasso Boulevard, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, and Tyler Street. It’s owned by an affiliate of its New York-based affordable housing developer, NHP Foundation, and managed by Massachusetts-based HallKeen Management.
City, state, and federal officials and West River neighbors gathered for a celebratory ribbon cutting at the new-housing site in June 2025 — six decades after Urban Renewal’s bulldozers plowed through the Oak Street neighborhood, nearly three decades after the late Rev. Curtis Cofield II began fighting to build back housing there. Tenants began moving into the new apartments in April 2025.
Forty-four of the apartments are set aside for renters making no more than 60 percent of the area median income (AMI), which currently translates to $55,740 for a family of two. Fourteen of those below-market-rent apartments are also “supportive housing,” managed in partnership with Columbus House for formerly homeless tenants. The remaining 12 apartments are reserved for renters making no more than 100 percent AMI.
The state court’s online database shows that there are currently 18 different eviction cases in New Haven housing court that have been filed against Curtis Cofield tenants by West River Housing Company LLC, an affiliate of NHP Foundation that is the legal owner of the apartment complex. Records in the housing court clerk’s office at 121 Elm St. show that Curtis Cofield’s landlord has actually filed a total of 22 eviction lawsuits against since December. Some of those tenants facing eviction used to be homeless.
“It was touted as affordable housing,” said New Haven Legal Assistance Association (NHLAA) attorney Shelley White, noting that the development is part of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program. White highlighted the “good work” of NHP Foundation. “How did we end up here?”
White and her colleagues at NHLAA are representing roughly 10 Curtis Cofield tenants in their housing court proceedings. She anticipates that number will continue to increase.
Property Manager: “The Goal Is Always Resolution And Housing Stability, Not Displacement”
White said that there are 14 Section 8 Project-Based Vouchers (PBVs) associated with the property. She said that many of those with PBVs were told that their rent was $0 initially, when they moved in. “It made some sense because they were coming from the shelters, and they thought this was a program to help them get back on their feet,” she said.
Then, many tenants said they were told to sign new leases, which set the new rent amount as 30 percent of their income. But White said that the new rent amount was backdated to cover earlier months. “They put the onus on the tenant to pay that back rent,” White said, “and it wasn’t their responsibility.”
In an email statement sent to the Independent, a representative from the Curtis Cofield management company HallKeen disagreed. “Retroactive rent adjustments are permitted under affordable housing and voucher program regulations. At move-in, all residents sign a lease stating that rent is due on the first of each month and that they are responsible for their portion of rent from the date of occupancy, regardless of subsidy status,” the company said.
The vast majority of tenants who White and her legal aid colleagues have spoken to are not receiving subsidized rents, White said. She said that she has yet to see anyone who is willfully not paying rent.
“Some people moved in and they [the landlord] told them they could wait a month” to pay rent, “then said they missed that month,” White said. “It appears to be a lot of mistakes by management and a lot of corrections that were not legally appropriate.” Many cases have been continued to court dates in late January and February, which White said was an attempt for everyone “to try to figure out what is going on here.”
HallKeen maintained that there are “no evictions” in-process at Curtis Cofield, despite the active eviction cases in local housing court.
“To clarify, there are currently no evictions in-process at Curtis Cofield II Estates. A number of Notices to Quits were issued, and a number of cases have pending court dates related to non-payment of rent. A Notice to Quit is a formal legal notice required under housing law and regulatory compliance; it is not an eviction,” a company spokesperson wrote in an email statement.
“Before issuing any Notice to Quit, management makes proactive, documented efforts to work with residents to resolve outstanding balances. This includes direct outreach, payment discussions, and coordination with subsidy and support partners. Legal notices are only used when required to maintain procedural timelines and comply with regulations.
“Historically, a majority of these types of filings do not result in residents losing their housing. Most cases may be resolved through payment plans. The goal is always resolution and housing stability, not displacement.”
Still, 22 households are either continuing to make their case against eviction in housing court or were successful in getting their cases withdrawn.
HallKeen confirmed that as of Monday, no Curtis Cofield tenants had been evicted.
None were evicted on Tuesday either. “When unpaid rent is not resolved, formal legal proceedings may be necessary to ensure compliance with the terms of the lease, Connecticut law and Fair Housing requirements. This legal process establishes a path for resolution,” a HallKeen representative said in a follow-up statement. “HallKeen is always willing to engage in mediation to establish court-approved payment arrangements. We anticipate that majority of these cases will be resolved before a Writ of Execution, or eviction, is issued.”
White said that she believes that the landlord doesn’t want to evict the tenants and instead just wants rent to be paid. But still, “you don’t need to go to housing court and file an eviction action for a payment plan,” she said. “It’s like siccing a lion on a cat.”
Some of the Curtis Cofield tenants interviewed by the Independent for this story blamed the multiple leases and payment miscommunication on the fact that the company has had multiple property managers since it opened.
“Like any business, staffing changes can happen and may be beyond the employer’s control,” HallKeen said. The management company said that since December 2024, two permanent property managers had been hired, and there had only been one property manager departure to date. “During the transition period while recruiting and onboarding an experienced manager, HallKeen temporarily staffed the property with a senior manager from another HallKeen community and the Director of Resident Relations from HallKeen headquarters to ensure continuity of operations and support for residents.”
Tenant: “If I Had To Leave This Apartment, Me And My Kids Would Be In My Car”
Tenants at Curtis Cofield who have faced or continue to face an eviction suit received a notice to quit possession on Oct. 21. Each notice, for nonpayment of rent, said that the tenant needed to vacate their apartment by Nov. 25. On Dec. 2, West River Housing Company LLC filed an eviction lawsuit against 22 of them.
M, a tenant who asked to be referred to by only her first initial for this story, moved into the Curtis Cofield II Estates in April 2025. When she first signed her lease, she said she was supposed to be paying $0 in rent — because she had no income. Then, she was asked to sign a new lease. She hadn’t realized that the new lease had her paying $226 per month.
“I didn’t even know that I had rent until I found out the day after my birthday that I owe $1,000 in back rent,” she told the Independent.
M lives in a two-bedroom apartment with her 1-year-old and 6-year-old children. She used to be homeless: she and her kids had been living with her mom and others, “house to house,” before she was able to secure a place at Curtis Cofield.
Although she’s not currently working, M was able to put up some money to pay back the rent she owed. Now, the eviction suit has been withdrawn.
Another tenant, who asked to remain anonymous, is still facing a potential eviction. She has a court date in February and is being represented by White and NHLAA.
She said that she works in the Hamden school district, and during the summer, it was hard for her to pay her rent. She missed payments in August and September. She is 28 and lives in an affordable unit with her 3-year-old son and doesn’t have a voucher. Their monthly rent is $1,306.
“I’ve been paying what I can” to catch up, she said. She said that notices had been put on her door and there was a program to help tenants budget. She hoped for some financial assistance. When she went to the office to ask what she would be dealing with in court, she said that a property manager had told her that the landlord didn’t want to evict everyone.
“I’m 100 percent worried because I can’t go based on what she’s saying,” the tenant said. She wants to stay in her current apartment. “I’m comfortable. My son’s comfortable.”
A third tenant, who also asked to remain anonymous, lives with her two children in a two-bedroom unit at Curtis Cofield. Their rent is $738, and they moved in toward the end of June. She said that she has never missed a payment — except for July. She said she was told by a property manager that she could skip and just pay August rent. She also ended up signing two leases: the first had no prorated rent, and the second one did.
She had been adding between $100 and $150 to her monthly rent in an attempt to pay back what she owed. She was served the notice to quit in October and then another letter saying she had to go to court.
She said before she was able to find a place at Curtis Cofield, she had experienced homelessness since 2016. “They said that I owed them $1,000 dollars. I’m struggling paying the rent that I’m paying now. It’s a lot. I was stressed, I was crying everyday, thinking I would have to find another shelter to go through,” she said.
She picked up another job and paid her balance a few days before her court date on Jan. 20. Her landlord then withdrew her eviction.
“I get paid weekly. The money that I make, I save it to pay my rent,” she said. “I don’t have any family to depend on. My whole family is going through what I was going through before. I don’t have anywhere else to go. If I had to leave this apartment, me and my kids would be in my car.”
She likes her apartment and was determined to stay. “I’ve enjoyed it. I’ve been going through homelessness for a while now. Having a place to live, that meant a lot to me. That’s why I was trying not to miss payments.”