OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs Apartment Owners Advisory Council (“AOAC”); Cooperative and Condominium Advisory Council (“CCAC”); 35 Clinton Place LLC (“35 Clinton”); Grassy Sprain Owners Corp. (“Grassy Sprain”); DiLaRe, Inc. (“DiLaRe”); The Craft Building Development Fund Corp. (“Craft Building”); Seven Pines Associates, L.P. (“Seven Pines”); and 512 NSSKE LLC (“512 NSSKE”) bring this action against the Honorable Lawrence K. Marks, Chief Administrative Judge of the Courts of the State of New York. Plaintiffs allege the tenant protections enacted by the State of New York in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which were implemented by defendant, are unconstitutionally vague and violate plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Now pending is defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (Doc. #55). For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED. BACKGROUND I. Tenant Protections in New York During the COVID-19 Pandemic In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the New York State legislature enacted a variety of protections against eviction for residential and commercial tenants. On December 28, 2020, the legislature passed the COVID-19 Emergency Eviction and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2020 (“CEEFPA”), which was designed to prevent evictions for tenants experiencing financial hardships during the pandemic. Two provisions of CEEFPA are relevant here. First, when a tenant self-certified she was experiencing a hardship because of the pandemic, CEEFPA prohibited landlords from commencing any eviction proceeding, stayed any pending eviction proceeding, and stayed execution of any judgment of eviction. CEEFPA, pt. A, §§4-6, 8. A tenant could self-certify she was experiencing a hardship by completing a form “hardship declaration,” which landlords were required to distribute to tenants. Id. pt. A, §§4, 5(1). Second, CEEFPA stayed all eviction proceedings when the tenant had defaulted. For landlords to procure or enforce any judgment of eviction when the tenant defaulted, landlords had to request a hearing and serve notice of any hearing on the tenant. CEEFPA, pt. A, §7. CEEFPA also provided: If a default judgment has been awarded prior to the effective date of this act, the default judgment shall be removed and the matter restored to the court calendar upon the respondent’s written or oral request to the court either before or during such hearing and an order to show cause to vacate the default judgment shall not be required. Id. CEEFPA was challenged on constitutional grounds, and on August 12, 2021, the Supreme Court enjoined the provisions regarding hardship declarations as violative of landlords’ due-process rights. Chrysafis v. Marks, 141 S. Ct. 2482, 2482 (2021). CEEFPA expired on August 31, 2021, and on September 1, 2021, the legislature enacted a new law, “S50001.” Relevant here, S50001 introduced a hearing process for landlords to challenge tenants’ hardship declarations “to address the Supreme Court’s due process concern, and to extend and strengthen the protections in the law.” S50001 §2. Specifically, S50001 provided that landlords could challenge hardship declarations by filing a motion “attesting a good faith belief that the respondent has not experienced a hardship,” upon which the court would hold “a hearing to determine whether to find the respondent’s hardship claim invalid.” S50001 pt. B, subpt. A, §10(1) (commercial tenants); accord id. pt. C, subpt. A, §10(a) (residential tenants). S50001 also continued the hearing requirement for proceedings on default. For residential tenants, the law further vacated all default judgments entered between August 13, 2021, and the date of the law’s passage. S50001 pt. C, subpt. A, §5. Again, the law stated that in cases in which a default judgment was vacated, the case could be “restored to the court calendar upon the respondent’s written or oral request to the court either before or during such hearing and [that] an order to show cause to vacate the default judgment shall not be required.” Id. S50001 expired on January 15, 2022. S50001 pt. E, §2. Following the expiration of S50001, Judge Marks issued a memorandum regarding the law’s continuing effect on eviction proceedings. (Doc. #62 exhibit 2). According to the memorandum, “[d]espite the expiration of [S50001], a Hardship Declaration shall serve as prima facie evidence establishing a rebuttable presumption that a tenant is experiencing financial hardship in a proceeding as a defense under any[] local or state law.” (Id. at 3). In addition, the memorandum explains: The expiration of [S50001] further removes the requirement that the court must first hold a hearing upon motion of the petitioner before issuing a default judgment authorizing an eviction in a residential eviction matter or authorizing the enforcement of an eviction pursuant to a default judgment. No judgment or warrant shall be issued on default without a motion to the court by the petitioner. (Id.). II. Procedural History This action was commenced on December 1, 2021, by eight plaintiffs: two membership organizations (the “Organizational Plaintiffs”) and six landlords (the “Individual Plaintiffs”). The Organizational Plaintiffs are AOAC and CCAC. AOAC is a membership organization for managing agents and owners of apartment buildings in Westchester County. (Am. Compl.
5-6). CCAC is a membership organization for managing agents and owners of co-ops and condominiums in Westchester County. (Id.
