In the case of Edward S. Cohen v. Hilda De La Cruz et al., 1997, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over bankruptcy law and its application to rent-controlled apartments in New York City. The petitioner, Edward S. Cohen, was a landlord who sought to evict his tenant, Hilda De La Cruz after she declared bankruptcy under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. He argued that her lease should be considered an "unexpired lease" which could be terminated by him as per Section 365(d)(4) of the code if not assumed within sixty days following filing for bankruptcy. The court ruled against Cohen's argument stating that residential leases in New York are not unexpired leases but rather statutory entitlements or rights subject to state regulation and thus do not fall under Section 365(d)(4). Therefore, tenants cannot be evicted solely because they filed for bankruptcy protection.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Edward S. Cohen v. Hilda De La Cruz et al., 1997, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a bankruptcy court's power to determine and discharge certain tax liabilities was incorrect. The dissent contended that this interpretation contradicted Congress' intent when it enacted the Bankruptcy Code, which they believed was designed to limit rather than expand bankruptcy courts' jurisdiction over tax matters. They also expressed concern about potential abuse by debtors who might use bankruptcy proceedings as a means of evading legitimate tax obligations, thereby undermining public confidence in both the taxation and bankruptcy systems.