Rokosz Most: So you’re going to the Court of Appeals.
Barbara Graves-Poller: Yes. It’s a wonderful court to practice in.
RM: You’ve argued a case there before, then?
BGP: Two cases.
RM: Oh, what were they?
BGP: So, the first case I argued, Franklin Street Realty versus New York City Environmental Control Board. It was about the interpretation of outdoor advertising requirements in New York City, where a person wanted to both benefit from being a corporation, but then disregard the corporate form when it would save him money. The second one was about a homeless shelter in Midtown on West 58th Street.
RM: So then for this one, round three with Rich Lanzarone, how important do you think it is, precedent-wise, your previous two wins in the Supreme and the Appellate Courts? Does that carry weight with the Court of Appeals?
BGP: The appellate process doesn’t exist to just allow someone who’s disappointed at the trial court level to just get successive bites at the same apple. Stated simply, it’s not enough for the property owners to just rehash the same issues and use the Court of Appeals as a kind of do-over litigation effort. They have to say what is legally erroneous.
RM: Do you like his chances?
BGP: Of course not. But it’s not about Mr. Lanzarone or any one individual, right? Because the process I just laid out isn’t about a single person’s view of facts. But litigation is a form of combat, right? So I’m not going to foreshadow all of my arguments here. Suffice to say that their submission is sort of ‘in the past’. It’s long on commentary and pretty short on binding authority.
RM: I assume you’ve looked over the arguments of Benjamin Neidl, the other lawyer Lanzarone has teamed up with to defeat vacancy studies in Poughkeepsie and Newburgh. What do you think the significance is of these other simultaneous efforts to overturn vacancy studies in other counties?
BGP: I have one client, and that’s the City of Kingston. So I’m focused on our issues and our study. I can’t really weigh in on how other municipalities may have executed their studies.
RM: In the past, you suggested to me that it wasn’t important who the individuals were — exhaustively bringing these court cases — even if these were to be part of these larger strategies to dilute or pervert the democratic will. You felt that it was more important that the system was strong enough to resist the pressure regardless of who was trying to bend justice in their direction. Do you still feel the same way?
BGP: Correct. It is not about me. It’s not about any individual property owner. It’s not about who is paying the attorney. I think what matters is that the 2019 amendments [to the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act] set at the state-legislature level are really on trial here. In 2019 the legislature kind of reset the balance of the rent stabilization framework …. Kingston was actually mentioned on the Senate floor when the HSTPA debates were under way.
RM: After the defeat of the Independent Democratic Conference? [The IDC Democrats were eight State-Senate Democrats, six who were successfully primaried in 2018 by progressives from within their own party and two of which resigned before the next election, all a result of their controversial decision to caucus with Republicans.]
BGP: Yes. There were detailed discussions in the Assembly about whether or not vacancy study requirements should be written into the [HSTPA] legislation. It so happens that Kingston has been leading in housing innovation, and this is one tool that our local legislative body has used to try to address the nationwide housing crisis as it plays out here.
RM: So it’s about more than Kingston.
BGP: So litigation, as in this instance, whether it’s here or somewhere else [in NY], is really about undoing that door that was opened in 2019. I bear no ill will toward any property owner who wants to litigate, but the fact is they’re trying to undo legislation and unfortunately it’s fallen on my desk to defend …. This is not a new challenge. This Court of Appeals filing is simply part of a litigation effort that began in 2022.
RM: When can the reader expect the Court of Appeals to take up the matter?
BGP: If the current briefing schedule holds, the case could be argued in May or June, with a decision handed down in fall 2025.
RM: What is the cost to the city?
BGP: If the city would have had to hire outside counsel for the Appellate Division stage of this litigation, it would have costed anywhere from $75k-$100k. In terms of municipal resources, NYCA litigation is resource-intensive but 100% consistent with my duties. Because Kingston has led the way in rent stabilization (outside NYC and its suburbs) we anticipated this challenge. While significant, this litigation has consumed far less of my office›s time than the barrage of lawsuits brought against the city by other for-profit corporations seeking to countermand our elected official’s actions and sound administrative determinations.
Join the family! 
