Last week the Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to New York’s rent stabilization laws, Harmon v. Kimmel, brought by an Upper West Side landlord. In the case landlord James Harmon argued that the rent laws amounted to a “taking” of property in violation of the U.S. Constitution because he is unable to evict without cause the tenants in his brownstone. Although the law has long been settled in this area, there was some concern given the willingness of the current Supreme Court to reconsider and reverse long-term precedents. New York City and New York State submitted briefs defending the rent laws based upon longstanding precedent. The real estate community blanketed the court with “amicus” briefs which apparently did not sway the justices. The real estate community also organized a media blitz resulting in many news articles about the alleged “unfairness” of the rent laws. Tenants must remain ever vigilant and organized to preserve the rent laws which the real estate industry will continue to attack on legal, political and media fronts as long as there are bigger profits to be made.
- HMGDJ Recovers Over $8 Million In Rent Refunds, A Waiver Of MCI Charges And Forgiveness Of 10 Years Of Rent Increases In Historic J51 Class Action Settlement
- HMGDJ wins a two and a half year, 30% rent abatement, after trial, proving the landlord failed to satisfactorily maintain a rent stabilized studio apartment
- Viewpoint: No question that enacted pro-tenant legislation working
- Spotlighting NYC landlords’ eviction tactics and rationales
- Some near-term perspective on slate of new protective NY housing laws