Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Analyzing the New Tenant Protections

By Mark Hakim
August 01, 2019

On June 14, 2019, New York lawmakers approved, and Governor Cuomo signed, the "Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019" (the Act). The Act contains a series of laws affecting all rentals within the State of New York, making permanent New York's rent regulation laws, including the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974. Proponents of the Act state that making these rent regulation laws permanent will ensure that New York's tenants are protected. However, as with any legislation, especially one that seems to have been enacted hastily, there are unintended and possibly quite adverse long-term consequences.

Among the many of its sweeping changes, the Act: 1) repealed high-rent vacancy and high-income deregulation, which had allowed rental units to be deregulated if the maximum legal rent had been reached and/or if the tenants earned more than $200,000 for the previous two years; 2) limits the amount a landlord can increase the rent upon obtaining a vacancy in rent stabilized apartments and removes fuel pass-along charges for rent controlled apartments; 3) limits the "owner use" primary residence provision to the use of a single apartment in a rent regulated building and provides tenants with a cause of action should they be evicted as a result of fraud by a landlord regarding the intended use of the apartment; 4) substantially limits the ability of landlords to charge back to tenants for any Major Capital Improvement (MCI) and Apartment Improvement (IAI) Increases for work in the apartment made by landlords; 5) requires landlords (of all leases) to provide written notice if the landlord intends to not renew a lease or if there is a proposed increase of rent greater than 5% percent for the renewal term; 5) limits the collection of credit search fees and the collection of security (and all payments) to one month's rent, and further prohibits the charging of application fees; 7) limits the amount of late fees that may be charged (lesser of 5% or $50.00); and 8) with respect to cooperative or condominium conversions, eliminates plans which allow a non-purchasing tenant to be evicted and now requires 51% of current tenants to approve the non-eviction plan (up from 15%).

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It Image

Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.

The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

A Lawyer's System for Active Reading Image

Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.

Protecting Innovation in the Cyber World from Patent Trolls Image

With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.