Supreme Court Considers Whether to Hear Challenge to New York Rent Control
Building owners argue that a state law is unconstitutional because it gives tenants control over how owners use their buildings.
The Supreme Court is set to consider on Nov. 1 whether to hear a challenge to New York’s rent control law, which allows tenants in a building to veto condominium conversions.
Building owners petitioning the Supreme Court argue that New York’s Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 has turned a temporary rent regulation system into a permanent expropriation of private real estate without just compensation, under the guise of ‘affordable housing.’
The act prevents apartment building owners from reclaiming rental units for personal use, and grants tenants a collective veto over condominium and co-op conversions.
The building owners claim that the law violates the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, which prohibits the taking of private property for public use without compensation.
As noted by Justice Clarence Thomas in Pinehurst LLC v. New York, the constitutionality of such laws is a significant and divisive issue that needs to be addressed in an appropriate case, according to the petition filed in April.
Related Stories
The court has recently turned down similar petitions challenging rent control laws’ constitutionality, but the current case specifically targets certain amendments to New York’s regulations, making it an ideal candidate for Supreme Court review.
Property owners Jane Ordway and Dexter Guerrieri, along with other small businesses, are challenging the law, claiming it infringes on their property rights.
They cite examples where their ability to reclaim rental units for personal use has been hindered by tenants’ refusal to vacate after lease expiry, causing financial hardship.
The petitioners argue that the law limits their ability to profit from their investments and filed a lawsuit in federal court, which was dismissed in 2021.
The Act faces opposition from the state of New York, which defends it as a necessary measure to combat rent profiteering and protect tenants.
The Supreme Court’s decision on this case could have significant implications for rent control laws nationwide.
