Rent Stabilization Law Is Constitutional

March 31, 2011

LVT Number: #23314

Landlord sued the NYC Rent Guidelines Board and the DHCR, claiming that the city's Rent Stabilization Law was unconstitutional. Landlord claimed that the law violated the Contracts Clause. The court ruled against landlord. The Rent Stabilization Law didn't result in permanent physical occupation of landlord's property in violation of the Takings Clause. The law provided landlords with the right to recover possession because of immediate and compelling necessity for their own personal use and occupancy, to recover for the immediate purpose of demolition, and to evict unsatisfactory tenants.

Landlord sued the NYC Rent Guidelines Board and the DHCR, claiming that the city's Rent Stabilization Law was unconstitutional. Landlord claimed that the law violated the Contracts Clause. The court ruled against landlord. The Rent Stabilization Law didn't result in permanent physical occupation of landlord's property in violation of the Takings Clause. The law provided landlords with the right to recover possession because of immediate and compelling necessity for their own personal use and occupancy, to recover for the immediate purpose of demolition, and to evict unsatisfactory tenants. Landlord also bought his building with full knowledge of the law and continued to use it as rental housing.

Harmon v. Markus: 2011 WL 782233 (2d Cir. NY; 3/8/11; Kearse, Sack, Katzmann, CJs)

Topics

More like this