Relates to actions and proceedings seeking an abatement of rent based on violations of the housing maintenance code

Showing the cosponsors who are on Agora, A to Z. The official record may list more.

• Democratic3

Shown in neutral colors by design; Agora is non-partisan.

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why Luis R. Sepúlveda says this is needed

In 1975, New York enacted Section 235-b of the Real Property Law, providing that every residential lease contained an implied warranty of habitability. In other words, a landlord had to ensure that rented and common spaces were "fit for human habitation," and did not threaten the "life, health or safety" of tenants. A tenant can obtain damages for breach of warranty of habitability, which typically comes in the form of a rent abatement calculated based on the "difference between the rent reserved under the lease and the value of the premises during the period of the breach" (Clarendon Gardens, LLC v. Wilson, 2024). The primary way market-rate tenants can obtain a rent abatement for a breach of warranty of habitability is through withholding rent and rais- ing it as a defense and a counterclaim in a nonpayment case. Unfortu- nately, this is an extremely risky and unreliable way for tenants to seek compensation for unsafe living conditions. A recent study found that "a tenant with a meritorious warranty of habitability claim had between a 1.8 and 2.4 percent chance of receiving a rent abatement generally, and a 9 percent chance if there were open code violations in the unit." In addition, "tenants with meritorious warranty claims were statistically just as likely to receive a possessory judgement as tenants without warranty claims" ("The Limits of Good Law: A Study of Housing Court Outcome," 2019). If a market-rate tenant wishes to receive a rent abatement, they risk eviction. While tenants can initiate a Housing Part (HP) Action in Housing Court, an HP action is limited to correcting violations or building conditions and cannot award tenants damages or abatements. As one court put it, an HP proceeding is not the proper forum to assert claims for breach of warranty of habitability because a "Housing Part proceeding is brought . . . for the limited purpose of enforcing provisions of the Multiple Dwelling Law, the Building and Health codes and the Housing Maintenance Code, to correction violations and conditions" (Dominguez v. Zinar, 2009). The only remedies tenants may seek in an HP proceeding are repairs and civil penalties payable exclusively to the Department of Housing Preservation and Development (Amsterdam v. Goldstick, 1987). While tenants could pursue damages in New York Supreme Court or Small Claims Court, the HP Part is already where a tenant would have to bring their claim for repairs. The HP Part is also already specially designed to accommodate unrepresented litigants through less burdensome pleading and service requirements. Additionally, if tenants were already seeking repairs in an HP action, they would have to initiate a separate case in Supreme Court to seek a rent abatement. This is extraordinarily onerous for tenants living in substandard housing. Unfortunately, tenants with cases pending in the HP Part are subject to months-long delays, while each borough (excluding Staten Island) only has one judge assigned to hear HP cases. By allowing tenants to sue for rent abatements in Housing Court and requiring a minimum of judges to be assigned to the HP Part, this bill would ensure tenants living in substandard, unsafe conditions can get the repairs and damages they are owed in a timely manner. It would also uphold Housing Court's original, statutory mission to provide "effective enforcement of state and local laws for the establishment and maintenance of proper housing standards- essential to the health, safety, welfare and reasonable comfort of the citizens of the state" (Ch. 872 of the N.Y. Laws of 1972 § 1(a)).

This is the sponsor's own case for the bill, quoted from their memorandum. It is not Agora's description of what the bill does.