New York Attorney General Letitia James is facing fresh criticism over the Homeowner Protection Program, after GOP rival Saritha Komatireddy accused her office of steering more than $54 million in taxpayer-funded grants to groups she says work against public safety. The challenge centers on how James has used her discretion over state grant money since taking office in January 2019.
Komatireddy’s analysis says nearly one-quarter of the $226 million in grants awarded by the attorney general’s office during James’ tenure has gone to six legal groups she describes as anti-police or criminal-friendly. The report argues that the money has been routed through HOPP, a program created in 2012 under former Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to help New Yorkers facing foreclosure after the subprime mortgage crisis. Komatireddy said James is supposed to be the state’s chief law enforcement officer and accused her of doing the opposite. She said law enforcement and local district attorneys are working with limited resources to fight crime, while James is, in her words, working against them.
The candidate also claimed the spending amounts to a misuse of funds that should be directed toward housing support, victims, and safer neighborhoods. She said many of the organizations funded through HOPP spend more on criminal defense and immigrant advocacy than on homeowner protection or tenant advocacy. Komatireddy said the issue is especially serious because the money was meant to help families keep their homes, not to support what she called efforts to defund police or eliminate jails. She said the controversy would end if she wins the attorney general’s office.
James’ campaign pushed back hard, calling the attack a political stunt and a smear. A campaign representative said Komatireddy would rather play politics than protect homeowners. The campaign said HOPP has helped keep tens of thousands of New Yorkers in their homes by funding free legal services and housing counselors. It also said the program helps stop deed theft, foreclosure scams, and predatory lenders from taking working families’ homes. James’ team framed the criticism as an attempt to distort the purpose of the program and attack a lifeline for homeowners.
