Building and Realty Institute of Westchester and Putnam Counties v. State Of…
Building and Realty Institute of Westchester and Putnam Counties, Inc. v. State Of New York
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:19-cv-11285
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 23
In Building and Realty Institute v. State of New York, Judge Karas denied 300 Apartment Associates’ intervention motion but allowed it to file friend-of-the-court memoranda.
300 Apartment Associates, Inc. could not become a party to the case, but it could file friend-of-the-court memoranda without further permission. The existing plaintiffs’ constitutional challenge and the defendants’ defenses were not decided in this order.
What happened
Building and Realty Institute of Westchester and Putnam Counties, Inc. and other landlords and organizations challenged amendments to New York’s Emergency Tenant Protection Act. 300 Apartment Associates, which sublets a cooperative apartment subject to that law, asked to join the case and add claims concerning the amendments’ adoption and legislative equivalency.
The court found that Apartment Associates moved early enough and had a sufficient interest that could be affected by the case. But it also found that the existing plaintiffs adequately represented the same objective—challenging the amendments—and that Apartment Associates had not shown collusion, conflicting interests, neglect, or incompetence. The court further found that adding Apartment Associates’ claims could delay or broaden the case without providing a significantly different factual perspective.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas denied Apartment Associates’ motion to intervene, both as a matter of right and permissively. The court did not decide the merits of Apartment Associates’ proposed claims, but it allowed Apartment Associates to file memoranda as a friend of the court without seeking further permission during the case.
The detailed version
- Building and Realty Institute of Westchester and Putnam Counties v. State Of… · No. 7:19-cv-11285
- Kenneth Karas
- Sept. 23, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs—landlords and organizations identified in the opinion—challenged recent amendments to New York’s Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974. The amendments were made through the Housing and Stability Tenant Protection Act, which also changed provisions of other New York laws. The defendants were the State of New York, Ruthanne Visnauskas in her official capacity as Commissioner of New York State Homes and Community Renewal, and the Division of Homes and Community Renewal.
300 Apartment Associates, Inc. sought to intervene. It was the proprietary lessee and stockholder associated with one cooperative apartment in White Plains, New York, which it sublet to a tenant whose tenancy was subject to the Emergency Tenant Protection Act. Apartment Associates wanted to join the plaintiffs’ constitutional challenge to the Housing and Stability Tenant Protection Act and add claims that the Act violated the principle of legislative equivalency and was not adopted in the manner required by the Emergency Tenant Protection Act.
Intervention as of Right
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 allows intervention either as of right or with the court’s permission. The court considered whether Apartment Associates’ application was timely, whether it had a legally protectable interest, whether the case could impair that interest, and whether the existing parties adequately represented it.
The court found that the motion was timely. Although Apartment Associates waited nearly four months after the complaint was filed to seek intervention, the case was still at an early stage and allowing intervention was unlikely to cause significant delay. The court also found that Apartment Associates had a direct interest in the constitutional challenge because it claimed to be subject to the challenged law and to suffer the same type of harm as the plaintiffs. The court concluded that an unfavorable decision could impair that interest.
The court nevertheless denied intervention as of right because Apartment Associates did not show that the existing plaintiffs inadequately represented its interests. Apartment Associates and the plaintiffs shared the same ultimate objective: challenging the implementation of the Housing and Stability Tenant Protection Act. Differences in legal theories or litigation strategy were not enough to establish inadequate representation. Apartment Associates did not allege collusion, conflicting interests, neglect, or incompetence by the plaintiffs.
Permissive Intervention
Apartment Associates alternatively sought permissive intervention, which is discretionary and may be allowed when the proposed intervenor’s claims share a legal or factual question with the main case. The court focused primarily on whether intervention would delay or prejudice the existing parties and whether Apartment Associates would significantly contribute to developing the factual or legal issues.
The court denied permissive intervention. It reasoned that Apartment Associates’ additional claims, even if related to the case, were separate from the constitutional issues being litigated and could broaden or delay the action. The court also found that Apartment Associates, as the landlord and sublessor of one apartment, did not offer a sufficiently different factual perspective from the existing plaintiffs. The court noted that the defendants’ argument that the proposed state-law claims might be legally futile could provide another reason to deny intervention, but it did not decide the motion on that basis and did not decide the merits of those claims.
Amicus Participation and Disposition
An amicus curiae, or friend of the court, is a nonparty that may provide information or legal arguments to assist the court. The plaintiffs had consented to Apartment Associates’ participation in that role. The court therefore allowed Apartment Associates to file memoranda as an amicus curiae during the case without seeking further permission for each filing. If it wished to file a memorandum concerning the pending motion to dismiss, the parties were directed to submit a proposed briefing schedule within 14 days.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas denied Apartment Associates’ Motion to Intervene and directed the clerk to terminate the motion.
Read the full 23-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.