Q&A
Debate over Mastro's lawsuit challenging aspects of the 2019 rent stabilization law
2:57:10
·
5 min
Council Member Restler and Randy Mastro engage in a heated discussion about Mastro's lawsuit challenging aspects of the 2019 rent stabilization law. Restler expresses concern that the lawsuit could potentially lead to the elimination of rent regulation in New York City, while Mastro defends the narrow scope of the lawsuit.
- Restler highlights that Mastro filed a petition to the Supreme Court asking to strike down parts of the rent stabilization law
- Mastro argues that the lawsuit only challenges specific amendments from 2019, not the entire rent stabilization system
- Restler expresses concern about the potential implications if the case reaches the Supreme Court
- Mastro insists that the relief sought is very limited and would not affect rent control or rent stabilization as a whole
Lincoln Restler
2:57:10
indeed, after making it through the state legislature.
2:57:12
Trint Giuliani signed it into law.
2:57:16
After we finally got rid of vacancy, de control, thanks to the state legislature's work in 2019 protecting tenants in perpetuity to be in the rent stabilization system.
2:57:28
Your response was not to celebrate this victory for tenants Of course, in 2021, you sued the state on behalf of a group of real estate companies asking that the court strike down the New York State rent stabilization law.
2:57:39
You lost at the district court, you appealed to the 2nd Circuit, and lost again.
2:57:44
On April 18 2024, 4 months ago, after the mayor began floating your name for corporation counsel, you filed a petition for cert to the United States Supreme Court asking the court not only to strike down the rent stabilization law, but also asking the court to overturn Penn Central.
2:58:01
The landmark case that established the NYC Landmark's law to not be a regulatory taking.
2:58:07
I'd now submit for the record your petition for certain.
Randy Mastro
2:58:12
Do you want me to respond to her?
Bertha Lewis
2:58:13
I I'm
Lincoln Restler
2:58:14
gonna the question I'd like to ask is, You've mentioned today that your clients in this case are small landlords.
2:58:19
Who is the client paying for your services in this litigation?
2:58:22
And are there any other entities besides the name client contributing to the payments for these legal services?
Randy Mastro
2:58:29
In in that case, it it is known that the rent stabilization association was involved in the case.
2:58:39
I represented small landlords.
2:58:40
And to be clear, we did not attack the rent stabilization law.
2:58:46
The issue was narrow, and you put the petition into the record.
2:58:51
So let's look at the petition, which says my plaintiffs do not challenge rent control and rent stabilization.
2:58:59
Simply the amendments, some of the amendments in 2019, that retroactively changed the law and affected their rights.
2:59:10
Specifically, their rights to re occupy their own these were small landlords who had only a few units, the right to re occupy their own property.
2:59:22
They no longer had the right to to move back into their property.
2:59:25
Number 1.
2:59:25
Number 2, They had invested tenant improvements.
2:59:30
And under the existing law in which they made those investments to improve tenant's conditions, they had a right to a certain amount of credit over a period of years and that was taken away from them retroactively.
2:59:44
These were small landlords who were suffering, and we brought a very limited challenge, not against rent control or rent stabilization.
2:59:53
We did not challenge them writ large, and that is not true for you to say that.
Lincoln Restler
2:59:57
But Mister Mastro, yes or no, isn't it accurate that a potential implication of the GMAX case is that this extremely conservative far right Supreme Court could entirely eliminate rent regulation in
Randy Mastro
3:00:08
your city?
3:00:08
Absolutely not.
3:00:09
And you obviously are not reading the first paragraph of our petition to the Supreme Court, which is we're only seeking very narrow relief.
3:00:20
It will not affect rent control or rent stabilization
Lincoln Restler
3:00:24
but it This report could have determined a different outcome.
UNKNOWN
3:00:27
Count count
Randy Mastro
3:00:27
count count count someone wrestler.
3:00:29
If we were successful in that case, it would mean that limited amendments which retroactively changed the law for small landlords who'd already invest than in their properties, alright, they would be able to get the same credit for having improved tenant conditions that they used to get before.
3:00:48
They would be able in a townhouse to move back into a floor of the townhouse when they were being when they had that right, and it was retroactively taken away.
3:00:58
Very limited relief, and we said that repeatedly to the Supreme Court and the lower courts.
Lincoln Restler
3:01:04
This is not a subject of regulation to this extreme far right conservative Supreme Court.
3:01:09
We put the affordable housing of 2,200,000 New Yorkers at risk.
3:01:13
1,000,000 rent regulated affordable apartments that we depend on as the linchpin for affordability in New York City that would upend how New Yorkers or men working class New Yorkers would no longer be able to live here without rent Counseling, I am deeply concerned that you performed a case that could have led to this far right extremist supreme court making the wrong decision.
3:01:34
And it may have not been the focus, the narrow focus that you were you articulating today, but it was the risk that the case pros posed, and you know better.
Randy Mastro
3:01:42
Counseling, I do know better because I know what I asked for.
3:01:46
And I know that the Supreme Court, just before we filed our petition, had rejected the efforts of other litigants to get rid of rent control and rent stabilization.
3:01:58
And the Supreme Court said, no.
3:02:00
We reject those petitions.
3:02:01
They are too broad, and we said to the Supreme Court, WE AGREE THAT'S TOO BROAD.
3:02:07
WE AGREE WITH RENT CONTROL AND RENT STABILATOR.
3:02:09
WE SET IT IN A VERY FIRST PARAGUE.
UNKNOWN
3:02:11
Reporter: BUT
Lincoln Restler
3:02:11
THIS IS THE RISK THAT YOU WILL TAKE.
3:02:12
Reporter: THIS SUPREME COURT HAS MADE DECISION AFTER DECISION THAT HAS NOT BEEN A NARROW RULING,
UNKNOWN
3:02:17
BUT
Lincoln Restler
3:02:17
THAT IT'S FAR REACHING CONSEQUENCES, INCLUDING Eliminating a woman's right to choose.
3:02:22
Right?
3:02:22
And so this Supreme Court has been making eliminating chevron deference.
3:02:26
We could go on and on and on where they have chosen to not act narrowly.
3:02:30
And you put the affordability of New York City at risk in this case.
3:02:34
I did.
3:02:34
I'd like to ask a few more questions about your clients.
UNKNOWN
3:02:36
Well,
Randy Mastro
3:02:37
I just the record is clear.
3:02:38
I did not do that.
3:02:39
And please read the first paragraph of the petition, which says the plaintiffs do not challenge rent control and rent stabilization.
3:02:45
Period.
3:02:46
End of story.
3:02:47
Thank you.