Landlords' Case Against Housing Court Dismissed

Facts: In 1989, RSA and individual landlords brought a class-action lawsuit in federal court against the New York City Housing Court, claiming that the court systematically deprived landlords of their constitutional and state law rights by unfairly favoring tenants. In 1991 landlords and the Housing Court signed a stipulation of settlement by which the court administrators agreed to change certain housing court policies. In 1992 landlords renewed their complaint, claiming that the Housing Court didn't comply with the stipulation. In 1993 several tenant groups intervened in the case and claimed that landlords lacked standing to maintain the complaint and that it was groundless. Court: Landlords lose. Landlords didn't have standing to maintain the complaint of illegal and unconstitutional conduct on the part of most housing court judges, clerks, and administrators because no specific claims were made to show how individual landlords were personally injured. RSA also lacked standing because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that an organization can join in a class action only when participation by its individual members wasn't required by the claim made. Landlords also didn't challenge the validity of a statute or ask that specific housing court procedures be prohibited. Landlords sought instead to control or prevent future events, so there was no reason for relief from the court. The federal court also found that landlords could seek relief in state court. The court also ruled that the relief sought by landlords was intrusive and unmanageable.

Miller v. Silbermann: ___ F. Supp. ___, 1997 WL 26282 (1/22/97) (S.D.N.Y.; Kran, U.S.D.J.)