Rent Regulations Are Constitutional

Facts: Landlord owned a four-story row house containing two rent-controlled apartments. Tenants had a perpetual right to occupancy given their advanced age and the fact that they'd lived there for over 20 years. Landlord claimed that she no longer wished to rent the apartments and challenged the rent control law in court. She pointed out that the New York City Rent Control Law didn't permit her to withdraw rent-controlled apartments from the rental market, even though she wished in good faith to give up the business of being a landlord. Landlord claimed that this violated her constitutional right to ``go out of business'' and resulted in a taking of her property without just compensation. The trial court dismissed landlord's petition, and landlord appealed. Court: Landlord loses. Rent regulations, including restrictions on rents and evictions, have been upheld by both New York's top court and the U.S. Supreme Court. The government can restrict withdrawal of property from the housing market. Landlord may cease doing business or sell the building at any time. There was no permanent physical occupation of her property by the government, and the property wasn't regulated in a manner that unfairly burdened landlord. Landlord knew the building was occupied by rent-controlled tenants when she bought it. The law has a valid public purpose of preserving affordable housing and preventing the dislocation of lower- and moderate-income tenants.

[Sobel v. Higgins: NYLJ, p. 24, col. 3 (12/3/92) (App. Div. 1 Dept.; Sullivan, JP, Carro, Rosenberger, Rubin, JJ)].