The Legality of Mamdani’s Rent-Freeze
Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani’s campaign centerpiece, a proposed four-year rent freeze on New York City’s one million rent-regulated apartments, has attracted significant attention. While critics have focused on the practical and economic consequences of such a policy, the proposal also raises legal questions that merit consideration.
From a legal standpoint, a rent freeze of this kind would likely encounter certain procedural and statutory challenges. Whether those challenges would ultimately succeed is less clear, but the proposal certainly pushes against established boundaries of how rent regulation has traditionally functioned under New York law.
Who Controls Rent Adjustments in New York City?
Under current law, adjustments to rent levels for stabilized apartments are determined by the New York City Rent Guidelines Board (RGB), an independent administrative body created under the Rent Stabilization Law. The RGB has nine members, all appointed by the mayor. Except for the chair, who serves at the mayor’s pleasure, members serve fixed terms and are expected to exercise independent judgment.
Each year, the RGB must determine whether to adjust regulated rents based on a range of economic factors. These include real estate taxes, water and sewer charges, operating and maintenance costs, vacancy rates, and cost-of-living indices. These determinations are intended to be informed by evidence rather than political commitments, though the line between the two can sometimes blur.
Why a Predetermined “Freeze” Raises Questions
Mamdani’s pledge of a four-year rent freeze seems to anticipate a particular outcome before the statutory review process takes place. That raises concerns about how such a commitment would interact with the RGB’s obligation to consider economic data annually.
If the RGB were to adopt a freeze that appeared more politically driven than evidence-based, landlords and other stakeholders could conceivably challenge the action. Whether such a challenge would prevail, however, could depend on how the RGB documents its reasoning and whether the courts view its process as sufficiently grounded in fact.
The Legal Remedy: Article 78 Proceedings
Under New York State law, any party aggrieved by an administrative decision may seek judicial review through what is known as an Article 78 proceeding. In such a case, a court examines whether the board acted within its lawful authority and whether its decision was supported by the evidence.
In theory, if an RGB decision appeared to disregard relevant data or procedural requirements, a court could intervene. But much would depend on the specifics of the record and the deference traditionally afforded to administrative bodies.
The Issue of Prejudgment and Bias
Mamdani has suggested appointing RGB members who would be inclined to support a multi-year freeze. This raises potential issues of impartiality.
New York courts have emphasized the importance of unbiased decision-makers in administrative proceedings. Public statements suggesting a fixed outcome could invite scrutiny, though it is not always clear where the line is drawn between permissible advocacy and impermissible prejudgment.
A Politically Risky Promise
Historically, rent-freezes have been rare as the RGB has implemented them only a few times since its creation. A four-year freeze would be unprecedented and would likely provoke legal debate, if not direct litigation.
“Freeze the Rent” remains a powerful political message, but its legal durability is uncertain. If pursued, the policy could invite costly litigation and risk being overturned in court, undermining the very affordability agenda it seeks to promote.
Contact Us
BBG is monitoring the election on November 4th and will publish further updates regardless of the outcome. For more details on potential implications for New York City property owners, contact us here.
Written by: Paul Alessandri, Litigation Department.
