Facial Challenge to HSTPA Rejected

The court actually faced two separate cases, one brought by a group of landlords and landlord advocacy groups, and the other brought by a different set of landlords. Because the claims in the two cases overlapped significantly, the court, through Judge Eric Komitee, treated them together. The various plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief barring enforcement of the statute, and, in the case of the as-applied challenges by some of the landlords, monetary relief for the alleged violations of the constitution's takings and contracts clauses.

Sovereign Immunity

Some of the landlords named the State of New York as a defendant, and the state belatedly moved to dismiss on sovereign immunity grounds. The court held that the Eleventh Amendment immunized the state from takings claims, rejecting the argument that the Supreme Court's recent decision in Knick v. Town of Scott, 139 S. Ct. 2162 (2019), opened the doors of federal courts to takings claims previously relegated to state court. In Knick, the Court abolished the rule that a federal takings claims was not ripe until the state had denied compensation, holding instead that "because a taking without compensation violates the self-executing Fifth Amendment at the time of the taking, the property owner can bring a federal suit at that time." Judge Komitee, however, construed Knick to remove only judge-made obstacles to federal court jurisdiction, but not the Eleventh Amendment obstacle.