Here's a two-fer that covers very difficult and unsettled subjects in takings law: judicial takings and rent control.
In this cert petition, New York property owners assert that the New York Court of Appeals (the state's highest court for those of you who do not watch Law & Order (dun-dun)), took private property when the court held that the petitioner's apartments are governed by the Rent Stabilization Law.
That holding subjected luxury apartments that were never formerly governed by rent control to the tenant's power to renew less-than-market rent in perpetuity. The petition asserts that before the Court of Appeals' ruling, "It was settled as a matter of New York law and practice ... that Section 421-g property was eligible for luxury decontrol[.]" Pet. at 35.
Here are the Questions Presented:
In Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 560 U.S. 702 (2010), the Court granted certiorari to settle a question that had divided lower courts: Can a judicial decision constitute a taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments? The eight-justice Court that decided Stop the Beach was unable to resolve the question. A four-justice plurality concluded that the Takings Clause applies equally to the judicial branch as to the legislative and executive branches. But the remaining justices declined to resolve the issue. Far from clarifying the law, the Court’s fractured decision has only exacerbated the confusion in the lower courts. Some courts now follow the Stop the Beach plurality opinion and recognize judicial-takings claims. Others deny that judicial-takings claims are cognizable. This case presents an opportunity to resolve the question left open in Stop the Beach.
The questions presented are:
1. Whether the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit courts, like other branches of government, from eliminating established property rights without just compensation.
2. Whether the New York Court of Appeals effected an unconstitutional taking by holding, contrary to decades of settled law and practice, that properties receiving benefits under Section 421-g of the New York Real Property Tax Law are ineligible for deregulation under New York’s rent-stabilization laws.
Follow along on the Court's docket here.
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, 50 Murray Street Acquisiton LLC v. Kuzmitch, No. 19-554 (Oct. 30, 2019)
