Q&A
Mastro's involvement in G-Max Management case challenging rent control laws
0:39:46
·
171 sec
Council Member Powers questions Mastro about his involvement in the G-Max Management case challenging rent control laws and potential conflicts with his role as Corporation Counsel. Mastro explains the nature of the case and his stance on recusal.
- Mastro confirms he would recuse himself from any matter involving amendments to the rent control law
- He clarifies that the G-Max case was a limited constitutional challenge, not opposing rent control in general
- Mastro emphasizes his support for rent control and explains the specific issues addressed in the case
Keith Powers
0:39:46
Okay.
0:39:47
Understood.
0:39:49
Just taking another example.
0:39:50
You're you're currently the council of record and the case GMAX managing against the state of New York.
0:39:55
Which you've they petition the Supreme Court to take up the case challenges, specific provisions of the housing stability and tenant protection act of 2019.
0:40:04
If your case that your client brings forward were accepted or in in in in any instance where it's working through the courts.
0:40:10
The city of York, I believe, has would likely file an advocacy briefing opposition to that case as it's on other cases as well.
0:40:18
In the past, that brief has been filed, and the front page usually has the name of the corporation counsel on it.
0:40:23
In this case, the attorney record of of the for this client, who who is currently you, would then be the comp corporation counsel for the City of New York, filing Amicus brief in that case.
0:40:35
Is that a direct conflict?
Randy Mastro
0:40:38
I would be recusing myself from any matter where the city was involved in the amendments to the rent control law, just to be clear, chair powers.
0:40:53
In that case, I represented small landlords who challenged a certain certain of the 2019 amendments to the rent control law.
0:41:05
But we said in the very first paragraph of our appellate brief to the 2nd Circuit and to the Supreme Court that we agreed with rent control.
0:41:13
We were not challenging rent control with large.
0:41:16
We support rent control, but certain retro active amendments where small landlords had made tenant improvements for which historically they were entitled to some credit over a period of years were retroactively changed, where their rights to move back into their own properties to live, had been retroactively changed, was a very limited constitutional challenge, but I would recuse myself anyway.
0:41:44
The city was not did not end up being a party on the merits in the GMAX case But if the city wants to file an Amicus brief, I would recuse myself from that, and and God God bless the city.
0:41:56
I I I have always supported rent control.
0:42:00
This was to address a unique problem limited to small landlords and the draconian effects of certain amendments retroactively applied to them, and we told back to the court that we support rent control.
0:42:18
But the effects of some of these amendments was just too much for these small landlords.
Keith Powers
0:42:22
Okay.
0:42:23
And and there are instances where the city has filed brief in the, I think, the chip's case against City of New York, and I'm sure others as well.
Randy Mastro
0:42:30
Yes.
0:42:30
Which was a challenge to rent control writ large, which we did not support we do not support.
Keith Powers
0:42:35
Got it.
Randy Mastro
0:42:36
I would never support that.
Keith Powers
0:42:37
Okay.