Landlord Organization Can't Challenge Code Provision
LVT Number: 8259
Facts: The Rent Stabilization Association (RSA), a landlord organization, brought a lawsuit in federal court challenging the landlord hardship provisions of the rent stabilization law and code. These hardship provisions allowed landlords to apply for rent increases if either (1) net annual building income had fallen for three years below where it had been between 1968 and 1970 or (2) annual operating expenses were greater than 95 percent of annual gross income from the building. RSA claimed that these provisions didn't allow landlords to earn just and reasonable returns on their property. RSA argued that this was a taking of property without just compensation, in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The court dismissed the case, and RSA appealed. Court: RSA loses. RSA claimed that the law was over-broad because it was unconstitutional when applied to certain landlords. But RSA did admit that some landlords could get relief under the hardship regulations. The court viewed this as a challenge to the hardship provisions as applied to certain landlords---not a challenge to the law itself. Since RSA didn't present any specific landlords who'd been injured by the law, it had no standing to contest the law as applied to anyone.
Rent Stabilization Assoc. of the City of New York v. Dinkins: NYLJ, p. 21, col. 3 (9/22/93) (U.S. Ct. App. 2d Cir; Timbers, Meskill, Pratt, CJJ)