New York Assembly Bill A01576

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/10/25
• Refer: 1/10/25
• Refer: 1/7/26

Caption

Provides that in any jurisdiction in which a party is eligible under local law for free legal counsel, if such party has in good faith attempted to secure such counsel and is unable to obtain counsel through no fault of their own, the court shall adjourn the trial of the issue for consecutive periods of not less than fourteen days each until the party is able to secure counsel.

Summary

This bill amends New York’s Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, specifically the rules governing adjournments in summary eviction proceedings. It requires courts in jurisdictions where a party is eligible for free legal counsel under local law to orally notify that party of the availability of such counsel. If the party elects to seek counsel, the court must adjourn the trial for at least 30 days to allow time to retain and consult an attorney, and must grant additional 30-day adjournments as needed for that purpose. The bill also modifies the existing adjournment and rent-deposit provisions in eviction cases. It clarifies that an initial adjournment requested by an unrepresented respondent to secure counsel does not count toward the limit on respondent-requested adjournments, including adjournments under the new counsel-notification provision. It preserves the court’s authority, after certain adjournment thresholds, to require respondents to deposit rent or use-and-occupancy payments with the court or another designated recipient, while also specifying defenses that bar such an order, including eviction-related defenses, housing code violations, rent overcharge, illegal occupancy, and lack of personal jurisdiction. The act applies immediately to pending and future proceedings. The bill’s impact is to strengthen procedural protections for tenants facing eviction in localities with right-to-counsel programs by giving them more time to obtain and consult free legal representation before trial. It would affect courts handling summary proceedings, landlords seeking possession or rent-related relief, and tenants who qualify for local free counsel programs, while leaving the broader structure of eviction litigation and rent-deposit remedies in place. General sentiment around the bill appears supportive of tenant access to counsel and due process, as reflected by its sponsorship and caption emphasizing good-faith efforts to secure free legal representation. No committee transcript or vote record is provided here, so there is no direct evidence of opposition or debate in the supplied materials. The main policy tension inherent in the bill is between protecting unrepresented tenants’ ability to obtain counsel and preserving landlords’ ability to move eviction cases forward and seek interim rent deposits. The most notable point of contention is likely the length and repetition of mandatory adjournments, which could delay resolution of housing cases and affect landlords’ recovery of possession or rent. Supporters would view the change as necessary to make right-to-counsel programs meaningful in practice, while critics may argue it increases delay and uncertainty in summary proceedings.

Impact

This bill amends RPAPL section 745 to require mandatory adjournments in summary eviction proceedings for parties eligible for local free legal counsel, and it revises the counting of adjournments so that time sought to secure counsel does not count against the respondent’s adjournment limit. It also preserves and refines the court’s authority to order rent or use-and-occupancy deposits after specified adjournment thresholds, while listing defenses that prevent such an order. The bill would primarily affect tenants in right-to-counsel jurisdictions, landlords in housing court, and judges managing eviction calendars.

Sentiment

The overall sentiment suggested by the bill text is favorable toward tenant protections and access to counsel. The measure is framed as a procedural safeguard for unrepresented parties who are eligible for free legal representation and need time to secure it. Because no committee discussion or vote history is included, there is no recorded floor or committee sentiment to assess beyond the bill’s pro-tenant design and sponsorship.

Contention

The likely point of contention is the balance between tenant access to counsel and the speed of eviction proceedings. Supporters would emphasize that tenants should not lose meaningful access to counsel because of short deadlines, while opponents may worry that repeated mandatory adjournments could delay cases and burden landlords. Another possible area of dispute is the interaction with rent-deposit orders, since the bill preserves that remedy but limits it where respondents raise certain defenses.