Establishes a private right of action for tenants alleging a failure to keep and maintain self-closing doors; allows for a court to award compensatory damages, reasonable attorney's fees and court costs and issue an order to the owner of the building to remedy any issue with such doors.
This bill creates a new private right of action for lawful occupants of dwelling units in New York State, including New York City, when a building owner fails to keep and maintain self-closing doors as required by the applicable fire safety and building codes. If a court finds a violation, it may award compensatory damages, discretionary punitive damages, or, at the occupant’s election, a fixed $1,000 in damages per occupant, along with reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs. The court would also be required to order the owner to correct the defective condition.
The measure applies both to the state Uniform Code through the Executive Law and to the New York City Administrative Code, making the remedy available in any court of competent jurisdiction. It preserves existing common-law and statutory remedies, does not eliminate other causes of action, and expressly states that it does not create a private right of action against local governments, city agencies, or employees. The bill would take effect 90 days after becoming law.
The bill would expand enforcement of self-closing door requirements by allowing tenants and other lawful occupants to sue building owners directly for code violations, rather than relying solely on government enforcement. It would amend the Executive Law and the New York City Administrative Code to authorize damages, attorneys’ fees, court costs, and injunctive relief, while also allowing owners to offset any award by delinquent rent owed by the occupants. The legislation would primarily affect residential building owners, tenants, and housing litigation involving fire safety and building code compliance.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears supportive and remedial. The sponsors frame the bill as a tenant-protection and code-enforcement measure aimed at improving compliance with self-closing door requirements, which are associated with building safety. No contrary positions are documented in the supplied context, so there is no recorded opposition or divided vote history to indicate broader controversy.
The main potential point of contention is the creation of a private right of action, which can increase litigation exposure for landlords and may be viewed as shifting code enforcement from public agencies to private tenants. Another possible issue is the damages structure, including the $1,000 statutory award option and the availability of punitive damages and attorneys’ fees, which could be seen as encouraging lawsuits. The bill also preserves rent obligations and allows offsets for delinquent rent, suggesting an effort to balance tenant remedies with owner claims, but no specific objections or supporters are identified in the provided record.