Cooperative and Condominium Advisory Council v. Marks

Background

The plaintiffs were Apartment Owners Advisory Council, Cooperative and Condominium Advisory Council, 35 Clinton Place LLC, Grassy Sprain Owners Corp., DiLaRe, Inc., The Craft Building Development Fund Corp., Seven Pines Associates, L.P., and 512 NSSKE LLC. They sued Lawrence K. Marks, identified in the opinion as the Chief Administrative Judge of the Courts of the State of New York.

The plaintiffs challenged New York tenant protections enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic. The challenged provisions included rules concerning tenant hardship declarations, stays of eviction proceedings, hearings involving defaulting tenants, and the vacating of certain default eviction judgments. The plaintiffs alleged that these provisions were unconstitutionally vague and violated their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief.

The defendant moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(1) permits dismissal when the federal court lacks jurisdiction, including when a plaintiff lacks standing or the dispute is no longer live. The court granted the motion.

Standing

Standing is the requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete injury, a connection between that injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a likelihood that a court ruling would remedy the injury.

The court held that the organizational plaintiffs, AOAC and CCAC, had not shown an injury in fact. They alleged that they spent money helping members with matters involving the challenged laws and therefore had fewer funds for other purposes. The court found this allegation conclusory and insufficient. The organizations also did not show that the laws created barriers to their ability to advocate for or serve their members, or that they had to make operational changes comparable to those recognized in cases where organizations established standing. The court therefore dismissed AOAC’s and CCAC’s claims for lack of standing.

The court also held that 35 Clinton, Grassy Sprain, DiLaRe, Seven Pines, and 512 NSSKE lacked standing. Grassy Sprain did not allege that its former superintendent had filed a hardship declaration, that a default judgment had been vacated, or that it otherwise could not enforce an eviction. The other four plaintiffs alleged that tenants had filed hardship declarations, but they had not tried to rebut the resulting presumption of hardship. The court characterized their claimed injuries as speculation that such efforts would fail.

The court found that Craft Building had standing. Craft Building alleged that it obtained a default judgment against a tenant, that the judgment was vacated under the challenged law, and that it was harmed as a result.

Mootness

Mootness means that a dispute is no longer live or that the court can no longer provide effective relief. The court held that Craft Building’s claims were moot.

Craft Building’s vagueness challenge was moot because the challenged law had expired. Its other claims concerned its alleged inability to obtain a default eviction judgment, but Craft Building obtained that judgment after filing its amended complaint. Because the court could no longer provide effective relief, it dismissed Craft Building’s claims as moot.

Disposition

The court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed the claims of AOAC, CCAC, 35 Clinton, Grassy Sprain, DiLaRe, Seven Pines, and 512 NSSKE for lack of standing, and dismissed Craft Building’s claims as moot. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion and close the case. The court did not reach whether the claims were also barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The opinion does not state whether any dismissal was with or without prejudice.