- Landlords are suing to overturn the Rent Guidelines Board’s decision to freeze rents on nearly 1 million stabilized apartments, alleging Mayor Mamdani improperly influenced the vote.
- Justice Brendan Lantry pressed both sides on the record, including whether landlords’ operating income rose and whether the board historically weighs landlord debt service.
- Lantry said he intends to rule quickly given the rent freeze is scheduled to take effect in October, leaving landlords and tenants both awaiting a fast decision.
New York City’s rent-stabilized apartment owners got their day in court this week, and a skeptical judge didn’t make it easy for either side. A Manhattan judge pressed landlord attorneys on whether they could substantiate claims that the city’s Rent Guidelines Board ran a “sham process” to freeze rents, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Get Smarter About What Matters in New York
Subscribe to our free newsletter covering the biggest commercial real estate stories across the five boroughs — delivered in just 5 minutes.
A First Time for Everything
Landlords are challenging the board’s decision to ban rent increases on nearly 1 million rent-stabilized apartments.
They argue that Mayor Zohran Mamdani illegally influenced a body that should independently weigh tenant affordability and landlord costs.
Attorney Randy Mastro is leading the challenge. He previously served as a deputy mayor and is also suing the administration over its pied-à-terre tax rollout.
Mastro argued that Mamdani appointed a handpicked board majority. He also said the mayor held a private meeting with members before the vote.
The meeting focused on the “true cost of living” in the city, according to Mastro.
“This supposedly independent fact-finding body was spoon-fed by the mayor’s office,” Mastro told the court. He said the presentation aimed to engineer a predetermined outcome rather than weigh the record impartially.
The Details
“They left landlords to drown,” Mastro told the court.
He argued that the board ignored landlords’ debt payments when it calculated affordability. Those payments often represent a significant share of landlords’ costs.
Justice Brendan Lantry pressed Mastro to support his sham-process allegation. Lantry noted that mayors can legally appoint their own members to vacant board seats.
He also noted that the city’s housing agency can communicate with the board.
Lantry then asked about owners’ net operating income. The measure tracks profit but excludes debt payments.
Mastro agreed that net operating income had increased under the board’s calculation. However, he argued that the figure was artificially low.
His concern centers on revenue from market-rate units in the same buildings. The calculation includes that revenue, according to Mastro.
City attorney Rachel Moston pushed back. She said the board reviewed months of data and testimony.
Moston also stressed that the decision ultimately came down to “a vote,” not a formula. “The board considered all of the data,” she told the court.
Zooming Out
The hearing marked the second time this week that Mastro faced the Mamdani administration in court.
The other case involves the city’s new pied-à-terre tax on luxury second homes. In that case, a Staten Island judge signaled potential support for homeowners’ claims.
The homeowners argue that flawed notification letters and an erroneous supplemental tax list caused them real harm.
The financial stakes extend beyond individual landlords. One CMBS loan already faces an $80 million loss risk tied directly to the looming freeze.
That exposure shows how far the fallout could reach into capital markets if the rule takes effect.
Why It Matters
A rent freeze covering nearly 1 million stabilized units would rank among the most consequential multifamily policies of Mamdani’s tenure.
The policy would directly compress net operating income for an ownership class already facing heavy cost pressures. Owners also face rising insurance, fuel and tax expenses.
Owners already describe a deeper financial squeeze across the rent-stabilized portfolio.
A court-upheld freeze would remove one of landlords’ last tools for offsetting rising costs.
A ruling against the city could produce the opposite result. It could upend the freeze before it even takes effect.
What’s Next
Lantry said he intends to move quickly because the freeze has a scheduled October start date.
That timeline could give landlords and tenants clarity within weeks rather than months.
The case began in Staten Island, the only borough Mamdani lost in November’s election.
A judge later ordered the case moved to Manhattan. The board held its vote there.
That procedural change became another small skirmish in the broader fight.
Owners of rent-stabilized buildings already face tight margins after the 2019 rent-law changes. They will watch the ruling closely.
The decision could signal how much room courts are willing to give the city on rent regulation going forward.
