We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies in accordance with our Cookie Policy.
New York City recently enacted a bill that adds two new additions to the lengthy list of protected classes under the New York City Human Rights Law. The law, which will go into effect on Nov. 22, 2023, makes it illegal to discriminate against an apartment buyer, renter, job applicant, independent contractor, or current employee based on the person’s perceived weight and height.
New York City joins six other cities and one state that passed similar legislation. Both New York and New Jersey have comparable pending bills.
In its latest attempt to violate the Regina ruling, the Legislature has proposed retroactively changing the method for calculating rents in apartments affected by the Roberts ruling.
Among the many amendments made to New York’s rent stabilization laws by the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (HSTPA) were new provisions making attorney’s fees mandatory for tenants represented by counsel who make successful rent overcharge claims. At the same time, there is no provision in the amended laws for an owner to recover attorney’s fees in the event that it successfully defends against an overcharge claim. As amended, Rent Stabilization Law §26-516(a)(4) and ETPA §12(a)(1)(d) each now provide that:
With the June 2019 passage of the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act (HSTPA), owners are desperately seeking ways out of rent regulation in an attempt to recapture the profitability their buildings previously had. Two such exit strategies are “substantial rehabilitation,” available only to deteriorated buildings, and “demolition,” generally available to rent-stabilized buildings regardless of their condition.
By Todd I. Nahins, Senior Partner, Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler, Nahins and Goidel, P.C.
The last time I wrote on the state of the Housing Court was over four years ago; I was not happy with the delays in obtaining trial dates and the length of time in which the judges took to render their decisions. Now I long for those days.
A tenant who flouts building rules and disregards the city’s mask mandate is likely to spark complaints from neighbors and staff members who are concerned about their health. The eviction moratorium doesn’t mean a landlord can’t take the matter to court. Consider the recent case of a Brooklyn landlord who sought injunctive relief and a temporary restraining order against a tenant based upon nuisance conduct that created health and safety risks affecting other occupants of the building.
As most of the landlord/tenant bar members are aware, not-for-profit housing providers abound in the city for the homeless, persons in recovery, and persons with disabilities who require transitional housing. When the apartments they lease are within a rent-stabilized building the question often arises as to what rights these organizations have under rent stabilization. The appeal of renting to not-for-profit agencies is that owners rent to one tenant, one contact, receive close-to-market rents, and face fewer obstacles in the collection of rent.
The DHCR persists in taking away owners’ incentives to improve apartments, as the agency has now moved into the realm of Individual Apartment Improvements or “IAIs.” On May 6, 2016, the DHCR issued Operational Bulletin 2016-1 (OB 2016-1), supplanting DHCR Policy Statement 90-10.
Life as a landlord in New York City requires owners to suffer insult and injury. An example is when a rent-stabilized tenant illegally sublets the apartment on websites like Airbnb for short-term rentals. Usually, the tenant is profiteering. The tenant charges a daily rent that is much more than the legal registered rent that the owner is limited in collecting. If the landlord charges more than the legal rent, the tenant will be awarded treble damages. So, the owner provides all the services and pays the taxes and the tenant profits. That is so wrong.
In New York City and the boroughs, where space between buildings can be minimal, building owners often need access to neighboring property to perform repairs, whether for erecting scaffolding, hanging in airspace, or standing on a roof. Similarly, new construction often depends on the ability to enter upon, near to, or below a neighboring building, sometimes for long periods of time. The law does not permit trespass, but at times, trespass is the only option. What should an owner do when neighbors say they need access to your property?
