New York Law Journal: High Court Not Likely to Hear Rent Law Challenge, Experts Say

 

High Court Not Likely to Hear Rent Law Challenge, Experts Say

Harmon v. Kimmel, 11-496, was filed against New York City in 2008 by James Harmon and his wife Jeanne. Southern District Judge Barbara S. Jones (See Profile) dismissed the case in February 2010.
Second Circuit Judges Amalya L. Kearse (See Profile), Robert D. Sack (See Profile) and Robert A. Katzmann (See Profile) affirmed the dismissal in a summary order in March 2011. The Harmons then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for writ of certiorari. Earlier this month, the Court asked the city to file a response to the petition by Jan. 4. The deadline has been extended to Feb. 3. Continue reading

Foundation Files Brief in Supreme Court in Challenge to Rent Control Law

 

Atlantic Legal News Archive
Monday, November 21, 2011
The Foundation partnered with the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence to file an amicus brief in support of petitioner in Harmon v. Kimmel, a case challenging the New York City Rent Stabilization Law as a taking of property in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. The lower federal courts had dismissed the lawsuit, finding that the rent stabilization law was merely a regulation of rent, not a “physical taking” of the Harmons’ property. The Harmons, husband and wife, own a brownstone building on the Upper West Side of Manhattan; they live in one apartment in the brownstone, and rent six other apartments, three of which are rent-stabilized and three of which are “market rate” apartments. The Harmons claim that the Rent Stabilization Law is a physical taking of their property because the law forces them to continue to rent the three rent-stabilized apartments to current tenants and their successors at below-market rates in perpetuity, thus taking the Harmons’ fundamental property right to exclude persons from those units.


In our amicus brief, we argue that the court below incorrectly relied on Yee v. City of Escondido in dismissing the Harmons’ “physical takings” claim because the New York City Rent Stabilization Law compels an owner of rent-stabilized apartments to submit to a non-consensual permanent physical occupation of the rent-stabilized apartment units, because the decision in Yee was limited to the “unusual economic relationship between mobile home park owners and mobile home owners” which does not exist in the case of rent-stabilized apartments, and because the economic relationship between rent-stabilized tenants and owners of rent-stabilized buildings presents the “different case” contemplated in Yee.
Continue reading

Atlantic Legal Foundation Files Amicus Brief in Support of Harmon Rent Control Challenge

 

No. 11-496
_______________________________________________
IN  TH E
Supreme Court of the United States
JAMES D. HARMON, JR. and JEANNE HARMON,
Petitioners,
v.
JONATHAN L. KIMMEL, in his official capacity as
MEMBER AND CHAIR OF THE NEW YORK CITY
RENT GUIDELINES BOARD, et al.,
Respondents.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT