Legal Opinion
Seawall Associates v. City of New York
New York Court of Appeals
Decided July 6, 1989PublishedCited by 102 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Hancock, Jr., J.
Local Law No. 9 prohibits the demolition, alteration, or conversion of single-room occupancy (SRO) properties and obligates the owners to restore all units to habitable condition and lease them at controlled rents for an indefinite period. Plaintiffs, real estate developers who own SRO properties, challenge the law as an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation. Defendants, the City of New York and various officials, contend that the law is a valid effort to help prevent homelessness by preserving the stock of low-rent SRO…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Nollan v. California Coastal CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by102 opinions
- Immuno AG. v. Moor-JankowskiNew York Court of Appeals · 1991
- Akpan v. KochNew York Court of Appeals · 1990
- People v. ScottNew York Court of Appeals · 1992
- San Remo Hotel L.P. v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
- Rent Stabilization Ass'n of New York City, Inc. v. HigginsNew York Court of Appeals · 1993
97 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.