Rent Stabilization Ass'n of New York City, Inc. v. Higgins

Majority

p. 594

(January 12, 1993)

Rent Stabilization Association of New York City, Inc., et al., Appellants, and Small Property Owners of New York, Intervenor-Appellant, v Richard L. Higgins, as Commissioner of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, Respondent, and Robert Wells et al., Intervenors-Respondents.

— Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.), entered November 27, 1991, declaring "family member” succession rights regulations promulgated by respondent to be a valid exercisé of its administrative power, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The regulations in question are valid for the reasons set forth in this Court’s opinion on the application for a preliminary injunction ( 164 AD2d 283 ). Even under the heightened scrutiny applicable to regulatory takings, the regulations substantially advance a legitimate governmental interest (see, Nollan v California Coastal Commn., 483 US 825 , 834).

Subsequent decisions in Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council ( 505 US —, 112 S Ct 2886) and Yee v City of Escondido ( 503 US —, 112 S Ct 1522) do not, in this instance, warrant a departure from our prior conclusion that plaintiffs’ challenge to the administrative regulations lacks merit (see, Hanover Ins. Co. v D & W Cent. Sta. Alarm Co., 164 AD2d 112 , 115). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Kupferman, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

Cases cited

Rent Stabilization Ass'n of New York, Inc. v. Higgins 164 AD2d 283 N.Y. App. Div. 1990-12-04 p. 594
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission 483 US 825 SCOTUS 1987-06-26 at 834 p. 594
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council 112 S Ct 2886 SCOTUS 1992-06-29 p. 594
Yee v. City of Escondido 112 S Ct 1522 SCOTUS 1992-04-01 p. 594
Hanover Insurance v. D & W Central Station Alarm Co. 164 AD2d 112 N.Y. App. Div. 1990-10-04 at 115 p. 594