This bill would regulate the use of “smart access systems” in New York multiple dwellings and multiple residences, including systems that use mobile apps, key fobs, key cards, passcodes, RFID, or biometrics to grant entry. It requires owners to provide tenants and lawful occupants with a non-web-based means of entry, such as a key fob, key card, digital key, passcode, or, in some cases, a mechanical key, and to offer a non-electronic means of entry when requested for religious reasons. It also requires free initial access devices for tenants and lawful occupants, allows additional devices for guests and workers, requires backup power or an alternative entry method, and mandates notice to tenants about their rights under the law.
The bill places significant limits on what data can be collected, retained, and shared through smart access systems. It restricts collection to information necessary to operate the system, bars collection of Social Security numbers, limits retention periods for authentication and reference data, and imposes special rules for biometric data, including consent requirements, disclosure limits, and rapid destruction timelines. It also prohibits location tracking, use of access data to harass or evict tenants, and conditioning a lease or renewal on consent to data use. Vendors must notify customers quickly about security breaches or critical vulnerabilities and provide free security updates for the life of the contract.
The bill would amend both the Multiple Dwelling Law and the Multiple Residence Law by adding parallel provisions governing smart access systems in class A multiple dwellings and other multiple dwellings. It would create enforceable tenant rights, make waivers of those rights void, authorize civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation and up to $10,000 for harassment-related violations, and allow the Attorney General to enforce the law. It also gives tenants a private right of action for damages and attorneys’ fees. For rent-regulated buildings, installing a smart access system would count as a modification of services requiring approval from the Division of Housing and Community Renewal, and the bill exempts certain publicly assisted and transient-occupancy buildings.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is protective of tenant privacy and access rights, with the legislation designed to prevent landlords and vendors from using smart entry technology as a surveillance or leverage tool. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from hearings or floor action. Based on the bill’s structure, it appears intended to address concerns about privacy, accessibility, security, and landlord control over digital building-entry systems.
The main points of contention likely involve the balance between tenant protections and building owners’ operational flexibility. Potentially disputed issues include the limits on biometric systems, the prohibition on using access data for eviction or regulatory proceedings, the requirement to provide free access devices and backup entry methods, and the restrictions on third-party data sharing and retention. Owners and vendors may view the compliance, security-update, and penalty provisions as burdensome, while tenant advocates would likely support the bill’s privacy and anti-harassment safeguards.
The bill would add new sections to the Multiple Dwelling Law and Multiple Residence Law governing electronic or computerized entry systems in residential buildings. It would regulate installation, access methods, data collection, biometric use, data retention, vendor security obligations, tenant notice, and enforcement, while also affecting rent-regulated housing by requiring DHCR approval for smart access installations as a modification of services. It would create new statutory rights for tenants and lawful occupants and impose civil liability and enforcement mechanisms on owners, managing agents, third-party vendors, and system providers.
No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no documented legislative debate or recorded support/opposition to summarize. The bill’s text itself reflects a strong pro-tenant, privacy-protective posture, suggesting the sponsors are responding to concerns about surveillance, access barriers, and misuse of building-entry data. The measure appears aimed at ensuring that technology does not replace basic access rights or become a tool for coercion or eviction.
Likely points of contention include whether landlords should be required to offer non-digital backup access, provide free access devices, and support multiple entry credentials at no cost; whether biometric entry systems should be restricted or delayed; and whether access data should be tightly limited and barred from use in eviction or regulatory proceedings. Owners and vendors may object to the compliance costs, security-update obligations, and private right of action, while tenant advocates are likely to support the restrictions on surveillance, data sharing, and retaliation. The bill also may raise debate over the scope of exemptions for publicly assisted housing and transient occupancy buildings.