The Real Estate Board of New York to The City Council Committee on Housing and Buildings Regarding Tenant Harassment and Safety

Download the Testimony

The Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY) is the City's leading real estate trade association representing commercial, residential, and institutional property owners, builders, managers, investors, brokers, salespeople, and other organizations and individuals active in New York City real estate. REBNY appreciates this opportunity to testify at today's oversight hearing on tenant harassment and tenant safety.

Protecting tenants from harassment is an important goal. While Intros 621, 622, 623, 993, and 1037, as well as Resolutions 119 and 246, seek to address this concern by strengthening existing protections against harassment, they conflict with or inadvertently create confusion around existing provisions of law.

REBNY agrees that extreme heat is a critical issue, and it is prudent to evaluate whether there are ways to expand access to air conditioning. However, Intro 994 imposes unachievable mandates on property owners, raises costs for tenants, and will increase carbon emissions at a time when the City is actively working to reduce those emissions in the building stock.

BILL: Intro 0621-2024

SUBJECT: This bill would expand the definition of tenant harassment to include unlawful evictions and the Certificate of No Harassment pilot program to include buildings where owners have committed unlawful evictions.
SPONSORS: Council Members Nurse, Abreu, Sanchez, Ossé, De La Rosa, Krishnan, Gutiérrez, Stevens, Won, Louis, Hanif, Ayala, Marte, Salaam, Rivera, Brewer, Cabán, Avilés, Restler, and Hudson (in conjunction with the Brooklyn Borough President)

One of the most extensive and frequently amended areas of New York City landlord-tenant law concerns what constitutes residential tenant harassment. Tenant harassment by building owners is prohibited by a number of laws that enable tenants to initiate harassment complaints in court or before state agencies or to raise harassment as a defense in eviction proceedings.

REBNY believes that unlawful evictions should not be tolerated under any circumstances. However, this bill appears to subject an owner who is merely accused of an unlawful eviction to participation in the Certificate of No Harassment program. This process is fundamentally unfair and violates the due process rights of an owner.

BILL: Intro 0622-2024

SUBJECT: This bill would ensure that lawful occupants can seek injunctive relief, including possession restoration, in tenant harassment cases, even if they aren't tenants or face potential possession claims if no possession judgment has yet been granted.

SPONSORS: Council Members Nurse, Abreu, Sanchez, Osse, De La Rosa, Krishnan, Gutiérrez, Stevens, Won, Louis, Hanif, Ayala, Marte, Salaam, Rivera, Cabán, Avilés, and Restler (in conjunction with the Brooklyn Borough President)
Intro 622 proposes that in tenant harassment cases, lawful occupants - who may not have formal tenant status - cannot be denied court orders for relief, such as regaining possession of the property, simply because they lack a formal lease or because the court believes regaining possession may ultimately be futile. The proposed bill would ensure that occupants have the right to seek protection from harassment without being hindered by status, as long as there is no prior court judgment against them regarding possession.

The practical effect of this proposal is to force a landlord to allow someone to live in their building who does not have the legal right to do so. Mandating that housing court grants a right of restoration without regard to the fact pattern for the individual case interferes with the court's ability to determine who is entitled to occupy. First, granting automatic occupancy to non-tenants may lead to specious claims by any individual who wishes to claim occupancy, thereby giving access where access may not otherwise be warranted, such as to a squatter. This restoration grants other rights that such individuals should be unable to access, including the ability by fiat to claim rights over a lawful tenant. When the owner has a meritorious claim against the tenant, this proposal effectively denies due process to the owner and again limits the ability of the housing court to adjudicate between the two parties in a case.

BILL: Intro 0623-2024

SUBJECT: This bill would increase civil penalties for unlawful eviction, bar offending building owners from city subsidies or tax benefits for five years, and allow owners to cure violations by designating part of the building for affordable housing.

SPONSORS: Council Members Nurse, Abreu, Sanchez, Ossé, De La Rosa, Krishnan, Gutiérrez, Stevens, Won, Luis, Hanif, Ayala, Bottcher, Marte, Salaam, Rivera, Cabán, Avilés, Restler, and Hudson (in conjunction with the Brooklyn Borough President)

The bill proposes increasing civil penalties to not less than $5,000, from $1,000, and not more than $20,000, from $10,000. The bill also states that the owner of a building violating this law would be banned from taking part in any subsidy program, tax abatement program, or tax exemption program of the City of New York for 60 months from the date of the unlawful eviction. Lastly, the bill proposes a cure for the violation by providing low-income housing.

REBNY believes the increases in financial penalties in this legislation are appropriate.

It is inappropriate to revoke or deny benefits wholesale to an owner because of a single wrongful act. A unilateral ability to revoke outside of the current benefit revocation structures will have a cooling effect on the ability to finance and utilize those benefits, resulting in less affordable housing. Additionally, the permanent imposition of income-restricted housing on a property without regard for the need to access a term sheet or those same benefits will translate to less stable financial footing and more quality-of-life concerns for the tenants as basic operating expenses will not be covered over time.

BILL: Intro 0993-2024

SUBJECT: This bill would require the NYPD to create a procedure under which officers can change the locks on dwellings where people were illegally locked out.

SPONSORS: Council Members Nurse, Hanif, Brewer, Sanchez, Ossé and Avilés

Intro 993 would establish procedures for the NYPD to change the locks on dwellings in cases of illegal lockouts, instances where legally occupying individuals are removed without a court order. The NYPD Commissioner would implement these procedures, ensuring that occupants receive keys to the new locks.

It is not appropriate to place additional court adjudication powers with the NYPD when such responsibilities typically exist within judicial purview. Determining whether an individual meets the 30-day lawful occupancy requirement calls for nuanced adjudication suited to a court setting rather than immediate police judgment. Additionally, situations involving orders of protection further complicate this topic. For example, if a tenant with an order of protection against someone living in the unit changes the locks to ensure safety, an NYPD officer may inadvertently grant access to the abuser if unaware of the protection order. Such scenarios raise questions of accountability and liability, underscoring the challenges of involving the NYPD in complex tenant disputes.

Bill: Intro 0994-2024

Subject: This legislation would require building owners or managers to provide cool, low humidity air between June 15 and September 15 when the outdoor temperature is 82 degrees Fahrenheit or higher. The maximum indoor temperature allowed under the proposal would be 78 degrees Fahrenheit at 50% relative humidity in all dwellings. Covered dwellings include both multiple dwellings and tenant-occupied one- and two-unit dwellings. The bill would require language in all leases describing these requirements. The cooling and humidity requirements would start 4 years after the effective date of the bill, with a hardship option to ask for additional time. The bill also contains pre- and post-compliance reporting and carries violations for non-compliance.

Sponsors: Council Members Restler, Nurse, Joseph, Hudson, Ossé, Krishnan, Avilés, Cabán, Abreu, Hanif, Stevens, Williams, Hanks, Marte, Salaam, Won, Louis and Gutiérrez (by request of the Brooklyn Borough President)

REBNY appreciates that heat is a significant and increasingly dangerous health threat. Tenants in New York City are generally allowed to install air conditioners and fans in their homes, and today 90% of New Yorkers have air conditioning. Further, in rent regulated apartments, there are specific rules in place to protect tenants, whether the owner or tenant pays the electricity bill, including when the tenant installs their own air conditioner.

Intro 994 would require owners to maintain temperature and relative humidity levels in residential units and display those levels. While access to cooling on the hottest days of the year is an important life safety issue, Intro 994 would saddle property owners with unachievable mandates while also increasing citywide carbon emissions and reliance on heavily polluting fossil fuels.

The mandates included in Intro 994 cannot be met by current technology used in residential buildings. While the overwhelming majority of New Yorkers already have air conditioners, many of the units used in the City today would not be sufficient to achieve the standards called for in this legislation. Instead, the systems that could meet these requirements are designed for large commercial spaces where materials vulnerable to heat and humidity are kept. As a result, the bill would necessitate extensive and impractical renovation work in residential buildings across the city, even where air conditioning is already provided. This work would require substantial capital investment and necessitate owner access into occupied apartments where tenants may not be willing to grant such access.

In addition, complying with this legislation would significantly increase electricity consumption, resulting in higher carbon emissions in the building. In 2019, New York City adopted Local Law 97, which imposes increasingly stringent carbon emissions caps on buildings. It is patently unfair to a property owner to force that owner to use more electricity in order to reach an unachievable cooling mandate and then later penalize that owner for the emissions associated with that electricity consumption.

While there is no data available to answer the question of why a small number of New Yorkers live without air conditioning, it is reasonable to assume that one barrier is the cost of the units and the ongoing electricity costs. While window air conditioners are generally available for under $200 and are reasonably easy to install, electricity costs in New York City are high and the monthly electricity cost associated with an air conditioner can pose a significant challenge for residents. The proposed legislation does not address this cost burden.

Instead, the legislation could be better targeted to help New Yorkers overcome these barriers. For instance, the City should consider creating a refundable income tax benefit to support low-income New Yorkers who need help affording an air conditioner. Alternatively, the City should consider expanding the existing HEAP Cooling Assistance program that provides a cash benefit to pay for the cost of air conditioning purchasing and installation. Owners could be required to post information about the HEAP program in their buildings each year or include materials about HEAP as part of the annual window guard and lead mailing.

BILL: Intro 1037-2024

SUBJECT: This bill would amend the administrative code in relation to posting certain information in multiple dwellings containing rent stabilized units.

SPONSORS: Council Members Nurse, Restler, Cabán, Ossé, Avilés, and Sanchez
This bill would require owners of apartment buildings that contain rent stabilized apartments to post a notice in the building's common area stating that the building contains such units. It would also require the building owner to provide information about how tenants can submit inquiries to DHCR to determine if their apartments are rent stabilized.

REBNY acknowledges the importance of ensuring that rent-stabilized tenants are fully informed of their status and rights. However, rent regulated housing owners are already subject to numerous notification requirements, and every rent stabilized tenant receives a lease rider that provides this information. Posting a notice in common areas may create confusion, leading non-stabilized tenants to mistakenly believe they are entitled to the same rights as rent stabilized tenants. In addition, DHCR maintains a publicly accessible list of buildings containing at least one rent stabilized unit, making the proposed legislation unnecessary.

Res: 0119 -2024

SUBJECT: This resolution calls for the passage of legislation denying property owners from filing eviction proceedings for tenants who reside in buildings with substantial pending maintenance code violations.

SPONSORS: Council Members Hudson, Cabán, Hanif, Farías, De La Rosa, Schulman, and Avilés

REBNY has serious concerns about preventing property owners with pending maintenance code violations from filing eviction proceedings. While well-intentioned, the proposed resolution overlooks scenarios where tenants themselves may hinder the owner's ability to make repairs, by denying access for maintenance work or causing damage necessitating such code violations. The presence of code violations should not create immunity from eviction for legitimate reasons, such as nuisance, non-payment of rent, or other lease violations. Resolution 119 would place an undue burden on property owners, particularly when alternative avenues for tenant recourse already exist, such as Housing Court proceedings or withholding rent and requesting an abatement hearing. Additionally, this resolution lacks clarity on what qualifies as a "substantial pending housing maintenance code violation," raising questions about how this would be consistently and fairly applied.

Res: 0246 -2024

SUBJECT: This resolution calls for the passage of legislation requiring unlawful eviction cases be heard in five days.

SPONSORS: Council Members Nurse, Abreu, Sanchez, Ossé, De La Rosa, Krishnan, Gutiérrez, Stevens, Louis, Hanif, Ayala, Bottcher, Marte, Salaam, Rivera, Cabán, Avilés, Hudson, and Won

Resolution 246 would require that unlawful eviction cases be heard within five days. While REBNY appreciates the intent to expedite eviction proceedings, we have concerns regarding the court's capacity to manage an increased volume of accelerated cases, potentially overwhelming an already burdened system. Although we support the principle that tenants and owners should have access to a timely court process, it is essential to first assess whether the current system can effectively handle and implement the proposed change.

CONTACT:
Dev Awasthi
Vice President
Real Estate Board of New York [email protected]

Public link

Please use the above public link if you want to share this noodl on another website.