Case Name: Rent Stabilization Association of New York City, Inc., et al., Appellants, and Small Property Owners of New York, Intervenor-Appellant, v. Richard L. Higgins, as Commissioner of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, Respondent, and Robert Wells et al., Intervenors-Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1993-01-12
Citations: 189 A.D.2d 594
Docket Number: 
Parties: Rent Stabilization Association of New York City, Inc., et al., Appellants, and Small Property Owners of New York, Intervenor-Appellant, v Richard L. Higgins, as Commissioner of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, Respondent, and Robert Wells et al., Intervenors-Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 189
Pages: 594–594

Head Matter:
(January 12, 1993)
Rent Stabilization Association of New York City, Inc., et al., Appellants, and Small Property Owners of New York, Intervenor-Appellant, v Richard L. Higgins, as Commissioner of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, Respondent, and Robert Wells et al., Intervenors-Respondents.

Opinion:
— Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.), entered November 27, 1991, declaring "family member" succession rights regulations promulgated by respondent to be a valid exercisé of its administrative power, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The regulations in question are valid for the reasons set forth in this Court's opinion on the application for a preliminary injunction (164 AD2d 283). Even under the heightened scrutiny applicable to regulatory takings, the regulations substantially advance a legitimate governmental interest (see, Nollan v California Coastal Commn., 483 US 825, 834).
Subsequent decisions in Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council (505 US —, 112 S Ct 2886) and Yee v City of Escondido (503 US —, 112 S Ct 1522) do not, in this instance, warrant a departure from our prior conclusion that plaintiffs' challenge to the administrative regulations lacks merit (see, Hanover Ins. Co. v D & W Cent. Sta. Alarm Co., 164 AD2d 112, 115). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Kupferman, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.