Requires the office of mental health to provide an informational notice to supportive housing tenants which contains information about a supportive housing tenant's rights as a tenant, information about their building and other related information.
This bill requires supervising state and city agencies, led by the Office of Mental Health, to create and distribute a plain-language “supportive housing bill of rights” notice for supportive housing tenants and applicants. The notice must be provided at key points such as applicant interviews, lease signing, lease renewal, and upon request, and it must also be served with eviction-related notices. It must be available in English and in the tenant’s primary language.
The required notice is broad and detailed. It must explain whether the unit is subject to rent stabilization or other housing protections, whether the building receives tax abatements or exemptions, eviction procedures and legal resources, housing code enforcement rights, reasonable accommodation and anti-discrimination rights, receipt and sublease rights, family and occupancy rights, harassment protections, program and funding information, grievance procedures, subsidy and rent information, and contact information for the relevant agencies. The bill also requires agencies to draft the notice within 60 days, maintain a complaint process, post complaints and responses online, and create an online portal and hotline for tenants to request copies of the notice.
In terms of state law, the bill amends the Social Services Law by adding a new section 131-cc and the Real Property Law by adding a new section 231-d. It also ties the notice requirement to eviction-related documents under the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law. The practical effect is to impose new disclosure and notice obligations on supervising agencies and landlords of supportive housing buildings, while creating a formal tenant-rights information framework for a population that often relies on layered public funding and service programs.
The overall sentiment reflected by the bill text and available context is strongly tenant-protective and administrative in nature. The measure is designed to improve transparency, ensure tenants know their rights, and make it easier to access legal help, grievance procedures, and agency contacts. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented opposition or support in the supplied materials, but the bill’s structure suggests a policy focus on preventing confusion, unlawful evictions, and rights violations in supportive housing.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the breadth of the required disclosures and the administrative burden on agencies and landlords. The bill requires multiple agencies to coordinate on drafting, updating, and enforcing the notice, and it requires public posting of complaints and responses. Landlords and service providers may view the requirements as extensive, especially where they must include funding-stream details, subsidy amounts, regulatory information, and eviction-related rights notices. Supporters would likely emphasize that supportive housing tenants need clear, accessible information because of the complexity of the programs and the vulnerability of the tenant population.
The bill would add new statutory notice and disclosure requirements to the Social Services Law and Real Property Law for supportive housing. It would require the Office of Mental Health and other supervising agencies to create a standardized tenant-rights notice, establish complaint handling and public reporting procedures, and provide an online portal and hotline. Landlords of supportive housing buildings would also have to attach or incorporate the notice into leases and certain eviction-related documents, expanding obligations on both public agencies and private housing providers serving supportive housing tenants.
The bill’s tone and design are strongly supportive of tenants and focused on transparency, rights education, and eviction prevention. The available materials do not include committee debate or recorded votes, so there is no direct evidence of partisan or stakeholder opposition in the record provided. Based on the text alone, the measure appears to be framed as a consumer-protection and housing-stability bill for supportive housing residents.
The most likely areas of contention are the scope and specificity of the required notice, the administrative workload placed on supervising agencies, and the compliance burden on landlords and nonprofit providers operating supportive housing. Requiring disclosure of funding streams, subsidy amounts, grievance procedures, and regulatory details may raise concerns about complexity, confidentiality, and implementation costs. Supporters would likely argue that these disclosures are necessary because supportive housing tenants often face layered rules and need clear, accessible information to enforce their rights.