 New York had also effectively granted tenants the right to enjoy cable television, which is not in itself a taking.Additionally, they claimed that application of a "per se" rule would have dire consequences for regulation of landlord/tenant relationships.The Court held that regardless of whether the action achieves an important public benefit or has only minimal economic impact on the owner, Manhattan Teleprompter's minor but permanent physical occupation of Loretto's property constituted a regulatory taking of property for which just compensation is due under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution, reversing the judgment of the lower New York state courts.