Marcus Brown Holding Co. v. Feldman

Background

A New York apartment owner sued tenants who stayed after their lease ended on September 30, 1920, asking a court to declare recent New York emergency housing laws unconstitutional and to recover the apartment. The tenants relied on 1920 state laws (cc. 942 and 947) that declare an emergency and limit actions to recover possession in large cities. The owner also joined the District Attorney to block criminal enforcement of statutes (including c. 951) that make it a misdemeanor for a landlord to intentionally fail to provide required services like water, heat, or elevators. The tenants said they would pay a reasonable rent and had tried to find another apartment. An earlier lease was alleged to begin October 1, 1920.

Reasoning

The Court accepted that a housing emergency existed and addressed whether the temporary laws unlawfully impaired private contracts or otherwise violated the Constitution. The majority held that when a genuine public emergency exists, the State may adopt temporary measures that limit a landlord’s right to repossess and may require ordinary building services. The opinion explained that contracts are subject to the State’s power when justified by the emergency, that the classification of buildings and exceptions were reasonable, and that the services requirement did not violate the Thirteenth Amendment.

Real world impact

The ruling lets tenants remain in affected apartments during the declared emergency and prevents landlords from using usual eviction actions except in narrow cases. Landlords may be criminally liable for failing to provide ordinary services. The statutes were temporary (effective until November 1, 1922), so the legal effects end with the emergency or when the laws expire.

Dissents or concurrances

A four-Justice dissent warned the decision weakens constitutional protections against state impairment of private contracts and cautioned against broad state power over private agreements.