If New Yorkers agree on anything, it is that rents have spiraled out of control. Median asking rents citywide stand at $4,200, according to a recent StreetEasy report. That puts the city out of reach for all but the wealthy or those lucky enough to have a rent-stabilized apartment. Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s rent freeze will likely make that problem worse by pushing more demand into the market-rate sector. But his signature campaign promise has a more fundamental issue: it may be illegal.
One of us, a longtime New York real-estate developer and owner-operator of multifamily and rent-stabilized properties, recently intervened through his company, DiFiore Realty LLC, in the lawsuit challenging the rent freeze, joining the plaintiffs represented by former Deputy Mayor Randy Mastro. Manhattan Institute, where the other of us works, is providing financial support for the intervention and recently filed an amicus curiae brief in the case.
Finally, a reason to check your email.
Sign up for our free newsletter today.
We did so because we believe Mamdani’s repeated promise to freeze rents prejudged a decision that by law belongs to an independent Rent Guidelines Board (RGB). The law requires the RGB, in setting rent-stabilized increases, to consider operating costs, taxes, vacancy rates, and more. Despite evidence showing mounting operating costs, the RGB (now with a Mamdani-appointed majority) voted to fulfill the mayor’s campaign promise for one-year and—for the first time—two-year leases.
Mamdani repeatedly and explicitly promised to freeze rents, including through various social-media stunts. He pledged to appoint RGB members who understood that landlords were “doing just fine.” Yet he knew that as mayor, he has no direct authority to set rent-stabilized increases, just as he cannot tell his appointed judges how to decide cases. So, in the weeks before the RGB’s vote, the mayor changed his tune, emphasizing the board’s independence.
The RGB’s structure and statutory framework are intended to shield it from political pressure and ensure balanced decisions. Mayors appoint members to serve fixed terms and cannot remove them except for cause. Owners and tenants each have two representatives, while five members represent the public.
Unlike the rent freezes under Mayor Bill de Blasio, which were imposed when costs were flat or declining, this year’s freeze occurs in a more challenging environment. The RGB’s own research found that operating costs for stabilized buildings rose 5.3 percent from April 2025 to March 2026. RGB member Christina Smyth resigned in protest hours before the vote, stating that “this year’s RGB order was decided last year on the campaign trail” and that the board’s majority was “required to deliver a rent freeze.”
The RGB did not justify its rent freeze with a written rationale. Its explanatory order catalogs data, memos, testimony, and studies, but does not state why a rent freeze is warranted. For these reasons and others, the RGB’s order should not receive the deference usually afforded administrative decisions.
A rent freeze would compound the problems that have followed changes in state law. Before 2019, New York’s system, though imperfect, balanced competing interests. Tenants had the assurance of lease renewals and annual rent increases that roughly tracked inflation. Owners could raise rents by greater amounts upon vacancy and after building- and unit-level improvements, making it possible to maintain and upgrade aging structures.
Albany disrupted this balance with the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019. By eliminating the vacancy increases and sharply limiting the amount owners could raise rent to cover improvements, the legislature embraced older, stricter forms of rent control. The RGB’s annual adjustment therefore provides essentially the only mechanism to recoup costs. The mayor’s rent freeze now threatens even that.
City buildings are deteriorating because their owners lack enough income to sustain operating costs and debt. Serious housing violations are far more common in pre-1974 stabilized buildings with higher concentrations of rent-stabilized apartments; these violations have increased in number since 2019. About 57,000 rent-stabilized apartments currently sit vacant amid a severe shortage because the HSTPA prevents owners from raising rents enough to recoup the cost of renovations. A rent freeze will accelerate vacancies and lead to further disrepair.
If successful, our legal challenge would not end rent stabilization or resolve the deeper issues with the HSTPA. It would, however, ensure that owners receive a fair process and prevent mayors from co-opting an independent body for political gain. The board should justify its decisions with a rationale. Lawmakers who want to help tenants further can do so without forcing owners to pay the entire bill—for example, through housing vouchers and deregulatory measures to boost housing supply.
If the courts don’t nullify the freeze, mayors will obtain de facto control over stabilized rent increases, despite statutory text and structure designed to insulate these decisions from political pressure. Rent freezes will become standard campaign promises, threatening the existence of privately owned, rent-regulated housing.
New Yorkers need lower rents, but they also need a government that follows the law.