RENT CONTROL’S CONSTITUTIONALITY: PART 2, COMETH THE MAN
|Even dropped from the Empire State Building, it can’t kill anyone|
|Destined to have his name in the law books? James Harmon|
Rent Control Hits the Supreme Court
Private apartment owners should not have to fund a
public welfare program.
OPINION | JANUARY 4, 2012
BY RICHARD A. EPSTEIN
High Court Not Likely to Hear Rent Law Challenge, Experts Say
Supreme Court Just Might Upset Rent Controls in
New York City
|WRITTEN BY BOB ADELMANN|
|MONDAY, 26 DECEMBER 2011 22:30|
When R.S. Radford, a principal attorney for the public interest law firm Pacific Legal Foundation, learned about the ruling against a property owner suffering under New York City’s rent control laws, he appealed the case to the Supreme Court. At issue in the case, Harmon v. Markus, is whether James and Jeanne Harmon, the owners of a handsome brownstone near Central Park, are entitled to relief from the city’s onerous rent control laws that force them to accept lower-than-market rents from three of their renters.
|High Court Has Apparent Interest in Challenge to Rent Stabilization
by Samuel Newhouse, published online 12-21-2011
This month, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered that the city file response papers by Jan. 4 to the petition of James Harmon, 68, and his wife, the owners of a five-story brownstone on the Upper West Side in Manhattan.
Having lost his case at both the trial court and the Circuit Court, the city waived its right to file opposition papers to Harmon’s petition to the nation’s high court, presumably confident that the Supreme Court would deny cert and dismiss Harmon’s petition. However, one of the nine justices (it is unknown which) has told the city to file response papers, indicating an apparent interest in the case.