8200 Realty Corp. v. Lindsay, 27 N.Y.2d 333 (1971)
A case becomes moot when the issue presented in the complaint has been superseded by subsequent legislation, rendering a decision on the original issue unnecessary and advisory.
Summary
8200 Realty Corp. challenged the validity of New York City’s Local Law No. 7 of 1972, arguing it violated state law prohibiting local rent control laws more restrictive than those already in effect. While the appeal was pending, the city enacted Local Law No. 51, purportedly in compliance with a new state law authorizing rent exemptions for senior citizens with landlord compensation. The New York Court of Appeals held that Local Law No. 51 superseded Local Law No. 7, rendering the original issue moot. The court reversed the lower court’s order and directed dismissal of the complaint.
Facts
The State of New York enacted Chapter 372 of the Laws of 1971, which allowed cities with a population of one million or more to continue rent control but prohibited them from enacting local laws controlling rents that were “more stringent or restrictive” than existing provisions.
New York City then adopted Local Law No. 7 of 1972, which extended rent increase exemptions for eligible senior citizens.
8200 Realty Corp., a landlord, sued, claiming Local Law No. 7 was invalid and unconstitutional because it violated Chapter 372 of the Laws of 1971.
Procedural History
The plaintiff, 8200 Realty Corp., was unsuccessful at Special Term and in the Appellate Division.
While the appeal to the New York Court of Appeals was pending, the city adopted Local Law No. 51 of 1972 pursuant to Chapter 689 of the Laws of 1972.
Chapter 689 expressly authorized the city to grant rent exemptions to senior citizens if landlords were fully compensated for the losses.
Issue(s)
Whether Local Law No. 51 of 1972, enacted after the initial challenge to Local Law No. 7 of 1972, rendered the original challenge moot.
Holding
Yes, because Local Law No. 51 superseded Local Law No. 7, thereby resolving the dispute over whether Local Law No. 7 was “more stringent or restrictive” than Local Law No. 31 of 1970.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that Local Law No. 51, passed in compliance with Chapter 689 of the Laws of 1972, replaced and superseded Local Law No. 7. Thus, the central issue of whether Local Law No. 7 was more restrictive than previous laws became moot.
The court emphasized that the issue was not likely to recur, distinguishing it from cases where the court might choose to address a moot issue due to its potential for future repetition.
The court cited previous cases such as East Meadow Community Concerts Assn. v. Board of Educ., 18 Y 2d 129, 135, to support the principle that courts should not entertain appeals when the issue is moot unless it is likely to recur.
The court declined to address the constitutionality of Local Law No. 51 because this issue was not presented in the original complaint or argued in the lower courts.
Finally, the court commented on the negative effects of piecemeal rent control legislation on rental housing maintenance, particularly for elderly tenants, and highlighted the uncertainty and confusion caused by such legislation.