Whether New York's rent-regulation laws effect physical takings

QUESTIONS PRESENTED New York’s Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 transforms a temporary rentregulation system into a permanent expropriation of vast swaths of private real estate, without just compensation, in the name of “affordable housing.” Among other things, the Act prohibits owners—even of small and midsized apartment buildings like Petitioners—from reclaiming rental units for their own personal use, and grants tenants a collective veto right over condo/co-op conversions. As Justice Thomas has observed, the constitutionality of regimes like New York’s is “an important and pressing question” that has divided the courts of appeals and should be addressed in “an appropriate future case.” 74 Pinehurst LLC v. New York, 2024 WL 674658, at *1 (U.S. Feb. 20, 2024) (statement respecting denials of certiorari). Although case-specific vehicle concerns may have dissuaded the Court from granting other recent petitions that sought to challenge the constitutionality of rent-control regimes in general, this case is based on a substantially different record, targeting only a specific set of amendments to New York’s regulatory regime, and thus provides an ideal vehicle for this Court’s review. The questions presented are: 1. Whether New York’s rent-regulation laws, and in particular its new restrictions on owner reclamation and condo/co-op conversions, effect physical takings. 2. Whether this Court should overrule Penn Central or at least clarify the standards for determining when a regulatory taking occurs.