Landlord's Claim to Recover Four Units Dismissed After HSTPA Amendments

In separate proceedings, landlord sued to evict four rent-stabilized tenants in a six-unit building in order to combine the apartments as a residence for his son. The court consolidated the cases, and tenants asked the court to dismiss the cases. The court ruled for tenants. The Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (HSTPA) amended Rent Stabilization Law Section 26-511(c)(9) so that landlord could now recover only one apartment in a building for owner occupancy and must show compelling necessity. Landlord argued that applying the amended law to his previously pending cases violated his due process rights and protections under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

But the applicable section of the HSTPA specifically states that the law took effect immediately on June 14, 2019, and applied to any tenant in possession at or after the law took effect, regardless of whether the landlord's application for an order took place before the law took effect. An appeals court also had already ruled that applying changes to rent overcharge provisions didn't violate a landlord's constitutional rights. Another appeals court has ruled that "rent regulation does not confer vested rights." And landlord "knowingly bought property in a heavily-regulated industry within the New York City housing market. The laws related to Rent Stabilization have been historically subject to the winds of changing legislative priorities." Concerning the Fifth Amendment, the court found that statutes regulating the economic relations of landlords and tenants are not per se takings.

Karpen v. Castro: 2019 NY Slip Op 29365, Index No. 87287/17 (Civ. Ct. Kings; 11/20/19; McClanahan, J)