Harmon v. MarkusHarmon v. Markus
Plaintiffs-Appellants James D. Harmon, Jr. and Jeanne Harmon (collectively, the “Harmons“) appeal from the March 2, 2010 judgment of the district court dismissing the complaint in its entirety. On appeal, the Harmons argue that the district court erred in dismissing their claims that the New York City Rent Stabilization Law,
We begin with the Harmons’ argument that the district court erred in dismissing their claim that the RSL effects an unconstitutional taking of their property. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, made applicable to the states and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that private property shall not “be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Here, the Harmons argue principally that the RSL effects permanent physical occupation of their property on the ground that it affords their tenants “rights and protections having attributes of fee ownership.” Pls.’ Br. 14. The Harmons, however, do not dispute that they retain statutory rights, among others, (1) to “recover possession of housing accommodations because of immediate and compelling necessity for [their] own personal use and occupancy,”
Moreover, the Harmons concede that they acquired their property in 2005 with full knowledge that it was subject to the RSL. Thus, they have “acquiesced in its continued use as rental housing.” Fed. Home Loan, 83 F.3d at 48; see also id. (“The law does not subject the property to a use which its owner neither planned nor desired. Rather, it regulates the terms under which the owner may use the property as previously planned.” (internal alterations, citations, and quotation marks omitted)). We therefore conclude that the RSL does not effect permanent physical occupation of the Harmons’ property and, accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing this takings claim.
We turn next to the Harmons’ contention that the RSL is unconstitutional under
The Harmons argue that the RSL impairs their right to “enter into leases on mutually agreeable terms, and to contract for the sale of their building, unencumbered by the tenants’ statutory ‘bundle’ of property rights.” Pls.’ Br. 60. A contract, however, cannot be impaired by a law in effect at the time the contract was made. See, e.g., 2 Tudor City Place Assocs. v. 2 Tudor City Tenants Corp., 924 F.2d 1247, 1254 (2d Cir.1991) (“Laws and statutes in existence at the time a contract is executed are considered a part of the contract, as though they were expressly incorporated therein.“). Here, there is no dispute that the RSL was enacted and became applicable to the Harmons’ property many years before they took ownership of it. Thus, the Harmons’ argument that the RSL impairs their lease agreements with rent-stabilized tenants is without merit.
Finally, we conclude that the Harmons’ due process and equal protection claims fail as a matter of law. Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Fla. Dep‘t of Envtl. Prot., — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2592, 2606, 177 L.Ed.2d 184 (2010) (observing that the Due Process Clause cannot “do the work of the Takings Clause” because “[w]here a particular Amendment provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection against a particular sort of government behavior, that Amendment, not the more generalized notion of ‘substantive due process,’ must be the guide for analyzing these claims“) (other internal quotation marks omitted); see, e.g., Rivera-Powell v. N.Y.C. Bd. of Elections, 470 F.3d 458, 470 (2d Cir.2006) (holding that conclusory allegation of an equal-protection claim of impermissible classification does not survive motion to dismiss).
We have considered the Harmons’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. For the reasons stated herein, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.