Real Estate Board of New York, Inc. v. The City Of New York
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:24-cv-09678
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Real Estate Board v. City of New York, Judge Abrams denied intervention but invited amicus participation in the FARE Act challenge.
Neighbors Together Corp. was not allowed to join the lawsuit as a defendant, although it was invited to seek permission to participate as an amicus curiae with the plaintiffs’ consent. The ruling did not decide the plaintiffs’ challenge to the FARE Act.
What happened
Real Estate Board of New York, Inc. v. The City Of New York concerns a lawsuit challenging New York City’s Fairness in Apartment Rental Expenses Act, which will generally prohibit residential real estate brokers from charging brokerage fees to tenants. Neighbors Together Corp., a membership organization that helps members search for housing, asked to join the case as a defendant.
Neighbors Together argued that it had a strong interest in defending the law and specialized knowledge about the effects of broker fees. The plaintiffs opposed intervention, arguing that the City already adequately represented those interests and that adding another party would complicate the case.
Judge Ronnie Abrams denied Neighbors Together’s motion to intervene because the City adequately represented its interests and the organization’s participation would not add a significant benefit. The judge invited Neighbors Together to seek permission to participate as a friend of the court, with the plaintiffs’ consent.
The detailed version
- Real Estate Board of New York, Inc. v. The City Of New York · No. 1:24-cv-09678
- Ronnie Abrams
- Mar. 3, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs—trade organizations, real estate brokerage firms, and landlords—challenge New York City’s Fairness in Apartment Rental Expenses Act, or FARE Act. They allege that the Act violates the First Amendment and Contracts Clause of the United States Constitution, New York’s constitutional free-speech clause, and New York state law. The Act became law on December 16, 2024, and is scheduled to take effect on June 14, 2025. The opinion addresses only whether Neighbors Together Corp. may intervene in the lawsuit; it does not decide the plaintiffs’ challenge to the Act.
Neighbors Together is a New York City-based membership organization committed to ending hunger and poverty. The opinion states that more than 60 percent of its members are homeless or unstably housed, and that it helps members with housing vouchers search for housing. It supported passage of the FARE Act and asserted that broker fees can prevent its members from obtaining housing. It asked to join the case as a defendant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b)(1)(B), which permits a court to allow a nonparty to participate when that party has a claim or defense sharing a legal or factual question with the main case.
Parties’ Positions
Neighbors Together argued that intervention would not delay or prejudice the case, that it had a strong interest in defending the FARE Act, and that its participation would help develop the factual record and fairly resolve the legal issues. The plaintiffs argued that the City already adequately represented Neighbors Together’s interests, that Neighbors Together lacked a legally sufficient interest in the case, and that intervention would unnecessarily complicate the litigation. The City took no position on the motion.
Court’s Analysis
Judge Ronnie Abrams denied permissive intervention. The court found that the City adequately represented Neighbors Together’s interest in upholding the FARE Act, which was sufficient by itself to deny intervention. The court recognized that intervention can sometimes be allowed even when an existing party adequately represents the proposed intervenor, but generally only when the additional party would assist in the fair and equitable resolution of the issues.
The court did not question Neighbors Together’s specialized knowledge about the effects and operation of broker fees. But it concluded that the organization’s intervention would mainly repeat issues already raised by the existing parties. The court was not persuaded that intervention would provide a significant benefit that could not instead be achieved through participation as an amicus curiae, meaning a friend of the court that offers information or arguments without becoming a party.
Disposition
The motion to intervene is denied. The court invited Neighbors Together to serve as amicus curiae if it wishes to do so, with the plaintiffs’ consent. If Neighbors Together seeks to participate in that role, it must file a letter motion within one week of the order and attach its proposed submission. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 31.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.