The landlords suing to overturn New York’s rent freeze finally got what they asked for: discovery. They now hold the texts and emails between City Hall and the Rent Guidelines Board.
Their lawyer calls them “shocking.” TRD read them and found no smoking gun.
Both things can be true at once, and the gap between them is where this case will be decided. If you own, lend on or manage rent-stabilized housing in New York, this matters to you. Your 2026 renewal income could come down to how a judge reads a stack of scheduling emails. Here’s what the documents show and what they leave out. Then I’ll lay out how I’d underwrite the uncertainty while the case plays out.
The Case in One Paragraph
Mayor Zohran Mamdani campaigned on a rent freeze for stabilized apartments. In June, the RGB voted for one, covering both one- and two-year leases. A group of landlords sued, arguing the vote was a “sham process” with a “predetermined outcome.” The judge has allowed discovery, and its first fruits are now public.
The landlords’ attorney is Randy Mastro, who was first deputy mayor under Eric Adams. In a filing, he argued the messages are:
“not only substantial, but also shocking, in that they show coordination and collaboration throughout the RGB’s process.” — Randy Mastro, attorney for the landlords
TRD’s own read is more measured. The coordination in the messages appears to be mostly logistical. Nothing in them refers to a freeze or a predetermined outcome.
What’s Actually in the Messages
Most of the traffic runs between RGB chair Chantella Mitchell and Arvind Sindhwani, the Mayor’s Office liaison to the board. According to TRD, the exchanges show:
- Sindhwani asking for logistics: the board’s public meeting and vote schedule, and data from its prospective reports
- Mitchell sending updates on who was set to testify at specific meetings
- Meetings or calls about the board’s data reports and invited speakers
- Sindhwani asking to be kept “in the loop” so he could coordinate with the communications team
Then there are the drafts, which are where I’d expect the fight to concentrate.
- On June 16, before the deadline for evidence and testimony, Mitchell sent Sindhwani a draft of the board’s explanatory statement. But unlike the final version, that draft did not include the order for a rent freeze.
- Mitchell also shared a draft of her own statement for the final vote. It didn’t mention freezing rents or any specific rent level. It only stressed preserving affordability in the housing stock.
Sending a draft before the evidence closes looks bad. A draft that doesn’t contain the outcome is a weaker exhibit for “predetermined” than the headline suggests.
The Appointment Texts
Mastro also pointed to contact between the mayor and Brandon Mancilla, a board member who had already backed a rent freeze publicly. Mamdani reached out before Mancilla’s appointment was finalized.
The exchange TRD published is mostly an introduction:
- Mamdani: “Hi Brandon, this is my new work number — Mayor Mamdani.”
- Mancilla offered to call. The mayor declined.
- Mancilla closed with: “And appreciate the appointment. Honored to serve.”
A second thread is livelier. Cea Weaver, director of the Mayor’s Office to Protect Tenants, told Mancilla the administration wanted him as a public member, not chair, and called that role “still very very critical for us so please say yes!!” Mancilla’s reply: “I’m saying yes.”
Sindhwani also set up a group meeting with the prospective members. It was held the day before the appointments were publicly announced, “to prepare,” per his email.
The Scorecard
Here’s how the two sides frame the same evidence, based on TRD’s reporting:
| Issue | Landlords’ framing | City’s response / what the record shows |
|---|---|---|
| Volume of contact | “Coordination and collaboration throughout” | 101 emails chair↔liaison this year vs. 228 under Adams |
| Draft explanatory statement (June 16) | Shared before the evidence deadline | Draft did not contain the freeze order |
| Chair’s vote statement | Pre-shared with City Hall | No mention of a freeze or a rent level |
| Mayor–Mancilla texts | Contact before appointment was final | An introduction; mayor declined a call |
| Weaver–Mancilla texts | Role was “critical for us” | About which seat he’d take, not how he’d vote |
| Prior interference | “Sham process with a preordained outcome” | Mastro himself lobbied the RGB chair in 2025 |
My own arithmetic on the email counts: the Mamdani-era total is about 44% of the Adams-era total. That’s the city’s best single data point, and you should expect to see it again.
The Mastro Problem
This is the twist that makes the case hard to call. Gothamist reported Wednesday that Mastro himself, as first deputy mayor, called the RGB chair last year to push for an allowable increase on the lower end.
Mastro has acknowledged talking with then-chair Doug Apple at the end of last year’s process, in conversations where Apple told him the board would propose guidelines Adams publicly disagreed with. Mastro says there is a “world of difference” between voicing disagreement and what he calls a “sham process with a preordained outcome.”
City Hall is not buying it. Mayoral spokesperson Matt Rauschenbach called the filing “pure misdirection.” He said “the only party that has worked to compromise the independence of the RGB is plaintiff’s counsel last year.” He added that this year’s communications were “limited, non-substantive, and in no way reflect any attempts to influence the outcome of the vote.”
Mitchell declined to comment.
Why Owners Can’t Wait for the Ruling
The freeze isn’t hypothetical anymore. In a companion story, TRD reported that it took effect Oct. 1 for leases starting on or after that date, on a rolling basis. Landlords must send renewal offers at least 90 days before expiration. Frozen renewals are already going out and being signed.
Judge Brendan Lantry has so far declined to halt the freeze. But he has ordered discovery, which TRD calls a rare move in this kind of case. Landlord attorney Sherwin Belkin of Belkin Burden Goldman summed up the stakes: “It is going to be a mess.”
My read, as an operator:
- Underwrite the freeze as base case. Even a landlord win likely triggers an appeal. Belkin notes a city notice of appeal would automatically stay the judge’s order.
- Track renewals signed under the freeze unit by unit. Herrick’s Andrew Wagner suspects any increase that comes out of the case would be retroactive. If it is, you’ll need clean records to bill it.
- Don’t count on collecting. Wagner’s own question is the right one: will a landlord sue a tenant over a few hundred dollars?
- Lenders will discount upside until there’s a final ruling. Price refinancings accordingly.
The Bottom Line
The landlords needed discovery to show a fixed outcome. What it has shown so far is a busy liaison: plenty of contact, and nothing yet that names the result. Their stronger point is about timing: a draft shared before the evidence closed, and a prep meeting before appointments were public. Whether a judge sees that as process or as pre-baking is the whole case.
Your move: pull your rent rolls and flag every renewal effective Oct. 1 or later. Model your stabilized NOI two ways, with the freeze holding and with a retroactive increase you may never fully collect. If you’re carrying stabilized debt, have that conversation with your lender now, before the ruling makes it for you.
Where do you land? Does this record show coordination or normal government? Tell me in the comments.
