Matter of 150 Park, LLC v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal

The court upheld rent reduction orders issued by DHCR after a landlord changed a building\u27s lock to one using non-duplicable keys. The landlord\u27s failure to provide a sufficient number of keys and attempts to charge for additional copies were found to be a decrease in a required building service, in violation of the Rent Stabilization Code. The court determined that DHCR\u27s decision was not arbitrary and capricious, as there was a rational basis for the agency\u27s determination. The landlord\u27s Article 78 petitions to challenge the DHCR decision were therefore dismissed

REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW YORK, INC. v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK

The court denied a preliminary injunction against New York City\u27s FARE Act, which shifts broker fee payment from tenants to landlords. The judge granted in part the City\u27s motion to dismiss, striking down plaintiffs\u27 First Amendment, New York State Constitution, and state law preemption claims. However, the Contracts Clause claim was allowed to proceed. The court emphasized that it cannot overturn legislation based on policy disagreements

WILLOUGHBY COURT APARTMENTS LP. v. FISHER

In a holdover case, the court granted the tenant\u27s motion for discovery, allowing the tenant\u27s counsel to inspect and copy the tenant file in a Project-Based Section 8 building. The court noted the landlord failed to allege prejudice or privilege and highlighted that any delay in the proceeding could have been avoided had the landlord complied with the initial request for the file, referencing federal requirements entitling the tenant to view their file

“The Gun’s Not Mine!”: The Admissibility of Defendants’ Exculpatory Hearsay Statements Under Federal Rules of Evidence 803(2) & (3)

Exculpatory hearsay statements made by criminal defendants often warrant admission under the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) as excited utterances, under Rule 803(2), or as statements reflecting a then-existing state of mind, under Rule 803(3). Nevertheless, defendants often struggle to have their exculpatory statements admitted pursuant to these rules—even when those statements fulfill their categorical requirements. This Comment surveys the different approaches courts take to determine whether exculpatory hearsay statements made by criminal defendants are admissible under Rules 803(2) and (3). It argues that courts too often misapply these rules to exclude defendants’ exculpatory statements. In particular, courts counteract the rules’ requirements and underlying purposes when using motive to fabricate as a barrier to admission. Further, courts sometimes construe their requirements in an unreasonably narrow manner. This Comment concludes that courts should rely exclusively on the express, categorical requirements of Rules 803(2) and (3) when determining the admissibility of exculpatory hearsay statements. It cautions that courts should apply these requirements correctly and consistently with the drafters’ intentions—without interpreting them more narrowly than intended or barring admission based on sincerity concerns their categorical requirements do not contemplate. Additionally, this Comment posits that imposing a discretionary trustworthiness requirement would risk undue uncertainty and is not needed to deter the dangers posed by fabricated exculpatory statements. Rules 803(2) and (3) provide an objective framework to ensure that only hearsay statements that are sufficiently necessary and reliable are admitted into evidence. And they offer multiple avenues for judges to exclude unreliable evidence. Moreover, existing institutional safeguards adequately mitigate the risks associated with fabricated hearsay statements

453 Cent. Park W. Tenant Assn. v. Park Front Apts., LLC

The court denied the landlord\u27s motion for partial summary judgment seeking to dismiss fraud claims in a rent overcharge case. The landlord argued the four-year lookback period could only be pierced for fraudulent schemes to deregulate, not merely overcharge. The court, citing recent Court of Appeals and First Department precedent interpreting a 2024 legislative amendment, held that the fraud exception applies to any fraudulent scheme to evade the protections of the rent stabilization law, irrespective of whether the unit was deregulated

The Roberts Court Paradox

As perhaps the most conservative Supreme Court of the past century, the Roberts Court regularly touts its commitment to traditional ideals, including the rule of law. Yet Trump v. United States seems ready to place presidents entirely or largely above the law by granting them absolute or near absolute immunity from criminal prosecutions for official conduct. And Trump is not a one-off: from judicial recusal to qualified immunity to due process decisions, the Court frequently seems to display indifference to values of accountability and impartiality that have long been thought integral to the rule of law. What is going on? We call this puzzle “the Roberts Court Paradox.” This Essay explains how the Court arrived at this untenable position and what has led it astray. Justice Antonin Scalia’s famous essay The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules provides our starting point. It argues that judges who wish to remain true to the rule of law must aspire to decide cases by formulating bright-line rules instead of nuanced rules, standards, or balancing tests. At the core of this argument are two ideas, both facially plausible. First, bright-line rules provide individuals with fair notice of what the law is and what sanctions they face. Second, they promise to prevent appellate judges from reading their own values into the law and thereby usurping the powers of other branches. We show that the Roberts Court is where it is in large part because of this equation of the rule of law with bright-line rules. Unfortunately, Justice Scalia’s argument withers under scrutiny, and it is especially weak as applied to constitutional interpretation undertaken by the Supreme Court. This is not only because it entirely fails to consider the centrality of accountability and equality before the law, which are both foundational to the rule of law. It is also because Justice Scalia’s “notice” and “limited power” arguments are far from compelling. While the value of notice is indeed critical in areas such as criminal law, it is much less important in constitutional law, which is primarily about power-conferring and power-constraining rules, not about sanctioning individuals for violating duty-imposing rules. And while judicial usurpation of power is indeed a rule-of-law issue, it is pure dogma to suppose that sticking to bright line rules is the only approach that can keep judges in their lane. More importantly, Supreme Court justices who create bright-line rules that preclude accountability for other branches of government are plainly abandoning the core value of limited powers, not protecting it. In sum: the Roberts Court, following Justice Scalia’s lead, has allowed its fondness for bright lines to overwhelm its duty to acknowledge the foundational place of accountability in the Anglo American legal tradition

756 LIBERTY REALTY LLC v. GARCIA

The court dismissed the landlord\u27s nonpayment petition with prejudice, finding that the landlord failed to prove the apartment was lawfully deregulated. The landlord claimed deregulation based on a high-rent vacancy and Individual Apartment Increases (IAIs), but could not provide any documentary evidence of the alleged renovations. The court found the landlord\u27s testimony and the DHCR rent registrations unreliable due to numerous inconsistencies and errors. The court concluded that the landlord failed to meet its burden of proof to establish a valid rent increase, affirming that the apartment remains rent-stabilized and directing the landlord to offer the tenant a proper rent-regulated lease