La Guardia v. Cavanaugh, 53 N.Y.2d 67 (1981)

The Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974 (ETPA) did not extend rent stabilization to Class B multiple dwellings in New York City because the plain language of the statute, its legislative history, and practical application indicate an intent to continue excluding these dwellings from rent stabilization.

Summary

This case addresses whether the ETPA extended rent stabilization to tenants in Class B multiple dwellings in New York City. The landlord, La Guardia, sought to evict tenant Cavanaugh for non-payment of rent in a Class B multiple dwelling. Cavanaugh argued the building was subject to rent stabilization. The court held that the ETPA did not extend rent stabilization to Class B multiple dwellings. The Court of Appeals reasoned that the legislative history, statutory language, and consistent practical application by the city indicated a clear intent to continue excluding Class B dwellings from rent stabilization.

Facts

Robert Cavanaugh resided in a pre-1947 Class B multiple dwelling owned by Mildred La Guardia since 1976. In June 1978, La Guardia initiated eviction proceedings against Cavanaugh for non-payment of rent. La Guardia’s petition stated that the building was a Class B multiple dwelling and, therefore, not subject to the Rent Stabilization Law of 1969. Cavanaugh moved to dismiss the petition, arguing the building was subject to rent stabilization.

Procedural History

The New York City Civil Court ruled in favor of La Guardia. The Appellate Term modified the judgment regarding the amount of rent due but affirmed the decision that Class B multiple dwellings were not subject to rent stabilization. The Appellate Division affirmed without opinion and granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the enactment of Chapter 576 of the Laws of 1974, including the ETPA, extended rent stabilization to tenants residing in Class B multiple dwellings in New York City.

Holding

No, because the statutory language, legislative history, and practical construction of Chapter 576 indicate a clear intent to continue excluding Class B multiple dwellings from rent stabilization.

Court’s Reasoning

The court focused on the interpretation of Chapter 576 of the Laws of 1974, particularly Section 4 (ETPA) and Section 7, which amended the application provision of New York City’s Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 (RSL). The court acknowledged that New York City Council Resolution No. 276 declared an emergency “for all classes of housing accommodations.” However, the court reasoned that if this declaration were interpreted to extend rent stabilization to all housing accommodations, it would render subdivision a of section YY51-3.0 of the RSL a nullity. Subdivision a explicitly applied to Class A multiple dwellings only.

The court highlighted that the State Legislature, in enacting Chapter 576, precisely duplicated the original subdivision a of section YY51-3.0, indicating an intent to maintain the existing limitations on rent stabilization. The court also emphasized the city government’s consistent policy of discouraging Class B housing, as evidenced by tax abatement programs that incentivize upgrading Class B dwellings to Class A.

Furthermore, the court noted that the Rent Stabilization Association, the agency responsible for administering the stabilization program, consistently excluded Class B dwellings. This practical construction, unchallenged by the city or state, strongly suggested that it reflected the intended scope of the legislation. The court invoked the principle of statutory construction that “when it is practicable to give to each a distinct and separate meaning, effect shall be given to every part of an enactment.” The court interpreted subdivision b of section YY51-3.0 as widening the scope of stabilization but not negating the condition precedent in subdivision a that the accommodation be in a Class A multiple dwelling. The court stated that the “other housing accommodations which could be subject to stabilization were those additional units subject to the city’s declaration of emergency and which met subdivision a’s condition precedent of being a class A multiple dwelling.”

Distinguishing Axelrod v. Starr, the court explained that Axelrod concerned exemptions (housing units meeting the requirements for regulation but specifically excluded), whereas the current case involved exclusions (housing units not meeting the basic definitional requirements for regulation in the first place). Therefore, the court concluded that Chapter 576 did not extend rent stabilization to Class B multiple dwellings, and the order of the Appellate Division was affirmed.