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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

189 A.D.2d 594

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 12, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 189 A.D.2d 594 (Rent Stabilization Ass'n of New York City, Inc. v. Higgins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rent Stabilization Ass'n of New York City, Inc. v. Higgins, 189 A.D.2d 594 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

— 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 A.D.2d 594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rent-stabilization-assn-of-new-york-city-inc-v-higgins-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack