Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Brooklyn Hous. and Family Servs. v. Lynch
(N.Y. Sup. Ct. Kings County, filed Apr. 17, 2001) ; Clearinghouse Number: 53886
Description
Tenant Organizations Challenge Amendments to New York Rent Stabilization Regulations
Abstract
Plaintiffs—low- and moderate-income tenants and tenant
organizations in rent-stabilized housing in Brooklyn—asked a
state court to annul recent amendments to the Rent Stabilization
Code. They argue that the amendments violate the rent stabilization
law and the state Administrative Procedure Act. The rent
stabilization law seeks to prevent unreasonable rent increases and
forestall profiteering and speculation in the housing market.
Plaintiffs allege that the new regulations gut tenant protections
by, for example, inhibiting tenants’ ability to challenge
illegal rents or seek rent reductions when a landlord does not
maintain an apartment. Plaintiffs assert that defendants—New
York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal and its
commissioner—exceeded their statutory authority and did not
adequately describe to the public the scope and effect of the
changes before promulgating the amendments. Plaintiffs claim that
the distributed text of the revised Code does not indicate changes
by redlining or strikeout marks, and the summaries of changes are
incomplete. Plaintiffs further allege that defendants failed to
consider alternatives or the effect of the proposed changes on
tenants or revise the regulatory impact statement in response to
public input. Plaintiffs seek costs and attorney fees besides the
annulment of the new regulations.
