Personal Use Occupancy Law in New York City

This is the third e-mail on the status of the constitutional challenge to the Personal Use Occupancy Law which applies in the City of New York.

The State of New York in Oster v. State has moved to dismiss.  In the memorandum of law supporting the State's motion there appears a representation by the Attorney General which I ask the reader to pay close heed.  The AG has stated:

Such relief was also allowed in Fallon v. DHCR, 154 Misc. 2nd 340 (Sup Queens 1992) where I was able to stop all personal use occupancy proceedings in garden apartments in Queens County from about 1988 to 1992.  Although the formal intervenors were all my clients, it became clear to the landlord's bar that cases of this nature as to garden apartments in Queens County would be deferred until Fallon was decided.  So the Fallon action even though ultimately lost, accomplished some four years of respite for the garden apartment tenants at a time where the landlord's bar was prosecuting such cases in many garden apartment developments in Queens County.

     The plaintiffs' finger here is in the vast dike attempting to hold back the abusive carpet bombing now prevalent in Manhattan.  I feel that if I can start this movement of intervention, hopefully with media attention, the coming Spitzer Administration may yet arrive with some practical relief while this litigation goes forward.

     Finally, it is my position that a tenant would be a proper candidate for intervention at any stage of proceedings from the time of the service of the Golub notice throughout all Court litigation so long as a warrant of eviction has not been executed.