Student Project: Rent Control & Rent Stabilization: Cases

Held that the "N.Y.C. Rent and Rehabilitation Law enacted by city council during a public emergency in housing based on net rental vacancy rate of 1.79% is constitutional and within power delegated to City of New York by state enabling act."

Held that a homosexual couple was a family for the purpose of succession rights to a rent-controlled apartment.

Held that "physical inspection of rent-controlled apartments by the state, confirming allegations in tenant's complaint, provided rational basis for reduction in rent payable."

Held that "vacancy decontrol of a rent-controlled apartment occurs when the tenant of record voluntarily vacates the unit...However, the surviving spouse or family member of a deceased tenant who has continuously lived with the tenant is entitled to remain in possession of the apartment as a rent-controlled tenant...The family member must establish a contemporaneous occupancy with the named tenant and some indication of permanence or continuity."

Held that "Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) had exclusive original jurisdiction over owner's action for permission to demolish rent-controlled building, to evict his rent-controlled tenants, and to refrain from offering renewal leases to his rent-stabilization tenants, as well as over tenants' action to compel owner to make repairs necessary to render their units habitable; thus, Supreme Court had no concurrent authority over those matters."

Held that because the "plaintiff may cease doing business under the circumstances set forth in the challenged regulations, or may simply sell the property at any time, the restrictions on her ability to evict rent-controlled tenants] she complains of are well within the government's traditional police power to adjust landlord-tenant relationships by regulating evictions."

Held that "the parties to a lease governing a rent-stabilized apartment cannot, by agreement, incorporate terms that compromise the integrity and enforcement of the Rent Stabilization Law. Any lease provision that subverts a protection afforded by the rent stabilization scheme is not merely voidable, but void."

Held that where a property owner offers property for rental housing...governmental regulation of the rental relationship does not constitute a physical taking."

Held that an interest in a rent‐stabilized lease is a local public assistance benefit within the meaning of DCL § 282(a). As a result, an individual is allowed to claim it
as an exemption from one's bankruptcy estate.

Held that the RGB "is authorized under the RSL to consider “tenant affordability” when establishing annual guidelines for rent adjustments. Based upon the precedents cited as follows, the court finds that the Board acted with a rational basis in taking into account “tenant affordability.”