New York Attorney General Backs City's Local Law 97 Against Lawsuit

In a major victory for environmentalists and a major setback for some middle-class co-ops and condos, the state attorney general's office has backed the Adams administration's opposition to a lawsuit that seeks to overturn the city's sweeping climate law, Local Law 97.

The plaintiffs in the original lawsuit were Bob Friedrich, president at Glen Oaks Village co-op in Queens; Warren Schreiber, president at Bay Terrace Section 1 co-op, also in Queens; and Maiden LLC, a limited liability corporation that owns a mixed-use residential and commercial building in Manhattan. The lawsuit was dismissed last November by a state Supreme Court justice. In May of this year, however, a five-judge panel in the Appellate Division's First Judicial Department ruled unanimously that one of the suit's four dismissed claims was valid: that the state's Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act may preempt the city's Local Law 97.

Now, in a boost to the Adams administration, the office of state Attorney General Letitia James flatly has rejected the claim that the mandates of the city law are effectively overruled by the state's climate law.

“That intent [of state climate law] was not to preempt, but rather to embrace local greenhouse gas reduction efforts like Local Law 97,” wrote Jennifer Simon, an assistant New York attorney general in the office’s environmental protection bureau, in court papers obtained by Crain’s.

“If implementation of Local Law 97 were blocked,” Simon added, “the state would lose a vital tool in reaching its emissions reduction mandates — with potentially devastating consequences for the economy, public health, and environment of the state.”

The attorney general’s office’s move to clarify state law and defend Local Law 97 is a win for the Adams administration and proponents of the building climate measure. It also indicates that state officials believe the lawsuit could open the door for others to challenge local measures to reduce planet-warming emissions. Indeed, Simon stated plainly in court papers that the “highly problematic” argument puts the state, the city and the real estate industry “in limbo with costly consequences.”

“So long as a cloud hangs over local initiatives like Local Law 97, no stakeholders will have the certainty required for effective planning,” Simon wrote. “Industry players will not know with what regulatory standards they will be expected to comply. They may therefore delay their own investments in emissions reductions or be forced into expensive course corrections.”

A panel of state Supreme Court judges ruled Thursday that the city can advance its fight against the lawsuit; the judges cited the state’s support as key in their decision.

Local Law 97, which took effect at the start of this year, is designed to reduce the city’s planet-warming carbon emissions from buildings — the city’s largest source of such emissions — by imposing progressively stricter caps on emissions. Co-op and condo boards and other building owners who skirt the law could face fines of $268 per ton of emissions over the limit — a penalty that for some properties could stack up to six figures or more annually.

It is widely expected that the fate of Local Law 97 will ultimately be decided by the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals.