Opinion
Argued November 13, 1986
Decided December 16, 1986
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, William P. McCooe, J.
Allen Green for appellants-respondents.
Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr., Corporation Counsel (Lee Fawkes and Stephen J. McGrath of counsel), for respondents-appellants.
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be modified in accordance with this memorandum, with costs to respondents-appellants, and, as so modified, affirmed.
We agree with Special Term and the Appellate Division that article 7-C of the Multiple Dwelling Law (legalization of interim multiple dwellings) is not in conflict with the due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, § 6 of the New York State Constitution. It is apparent from the legislative findings that the enactment is supported by a legitimate concern that loft buildings are being converted to residential use "without compliance with applicable building codes", that many of these buildings "do not conform to minimum standards for health, safety and fire protection", and that an "acute shortage of housing" already exists (Multiple Dwelling Law § 280). The statute establishes a reasonable means to meet these legislative concerns and is, therefore, a valid exercise of the police power (Goldblatt v Town of Hempstead, 369 U.S. 590, 594-595; Suffolk Outdoor Adv. Co. v Hulse, 43 N.Y.2d 483, 489). We find no merit to the claim that the statute violates the equal protection clauses of the State or Federal Constitutions (US Const 14th Amend; N Y Const, art I, § 11; see, e.g., McGowan v Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 425; 8200 Realty Corp. v Lindsay, 27 N.Y.2d 124, 137), nor is there any showing that the statute, as applied to the particular properties of plaintiff, contravenes the State or Federal Constitutions as a taking without just compensation (see, e.g., Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v New York City, 438 U.S. 104, 127-128; Modjeska Sign Studios v Berle, 43 N.Y.2d 468, 473-475, 477; cf. French Investing Co. v City of New York, 39 N.Y.2d 587, appeal dismissed 429 U.S. 990). There is no merit to plaintiffs' other attacks on the statute's validity.
Special Term erred, however, in ordering hardship hearings, because mandamus is an extraordinary remedy which lies only "to compel the performance of a purely ministerial act where there is a clear right to the relief sought" (Matter of Legal Aid Socy. v Scheinman, 53 N.Y.2d 12, 16; see, Legal Aid Socy. v Ward, 61 N.Y.2d 744). Although the statute requires respondent Loft Board to resolve hardship applications, it does not require the Board to schedule hearings when it does so (see, Multiple Dwelling Law § 282). Thus, the remedy did not lie to compel the Loft Board to schedule hardship hearings, and that direction should be stricken.
Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges MEYER, SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER, TITONE and HANCOCK, JR., concur in memorandum.
Order modified, etc.