Legal Opinion · Dissent

City of New York v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

New York Court of Appeals

Decided December 20, 2001Published

1DissentRosenblatt, J.

The Court today concludes that a municipality’s reduction in the profits of landlords does not violate the Urstadt Law’s prohibition on “more stringent or restrictive” rent control regulation (L 1971, ch 372, as amended by L 1971, ch 1012 [McKinney’s Uncons Laws of NY § 8605]) so long as the reduction does not “enlarge [ ] the City’s regulatory control” (majority opn, at 227). Because this interpretation comports neither with the language nor the purpose of the Urstadt Law, I respectfully dissent.

There are three problems associated with the majority’s test, and I find them insurmountable.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Mayer v. City Rent AgencyNew York Court of Appeals · 1978
  2. 241 East 22nd Street Corp. v. City Rent AgencyNew York Court of Appeals · 1973
  3. Greater Boston Real Estate Board v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1999
  4. Centennial-Aspen II Ltd. Partnership v. City of AspenDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 1994

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API