Provides additional enforcement of housing maintenance code violations in the city of New York; requires the department of housing preservation and development to produce a list of owners/landlords with multiple violations; directs HPD to commence proceedings to be appointed as the administrator of buildings with multiple, longstanding violations; provides additional penalties.
A05645 would strengthen enforcement of housing maintenance code violations in New York City by creating a more aggressive intervention process for buildings with persistent, unresolved problems. The bill directs the city department responsible for housing code enforcement to begin proceedings to appoint an administrator for a property when an owner or the owner’s agent leaves 20 or more housing maintenance code violations uncured for more than 12 consecutive months. In those cases, the court would be required to appoint the department commissioner or the commissioner’s designee as administrator if the petition is granted.
The bill also requires the city to maintain and publicly post an online list of owners and managers of multifamily residential buildings with significant open violations, false certifications, or specified serious habitability problems, such as lack of heat, hot water, gas, electricity, vermin, lead paint, mold, or defective common-area conditions. The list would be ordered to highlight the worst offenders, and violations would be counted cumulatively across all buildings owned by the same owner. In addition, the department would be directed to pursue contempt motions, civil penalties, and enforcement of money judgments tied to housing code violations.
A05645 would also add consequences for real estate licensees who act as property managers or otherwise handle leasing and rent collection for landlords appearing on the public violations list. Those licensees could have their licenses suspended and be required to retake licensing education and pass the exam again. The bill further imposes a $10,000 fine for each health or safety violation that remains uncured after the owner has been on the list for more than 12 consecutive months.
The bill’s impact on state and city law would be significant, especially in New York City, because it expands the tools available to enforce housing maintenance standards and shifts more control over chronically noncompliant buildings away from owners and toward court-appointed administration. It amends the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law and the New York City Charter, creating new mandatory enforcement duties for the city housing agency and new public disclosure and penalty provisions affecting landlords, building managers, and real estate professionals.
The overall sentiment reflected by the bill text is strongly enforcement-oriented and tenant-protective, with no recorded committee debate or votes available in the provided materials. The main point of contention likely would be the bill’s severity: landlords and property managers could view the public listing, mandatory administrator appointment, license sanctions, and per-violation fines as highly punitive, while tenant advocates would likely support the bill as a response to chronic code violations and unsafe living conditions.
The bill would amend the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law and the New York City Charter to create new enforcement mechanisms for persistent housing code violations in New York City. It would require the housing enforcement department to seek court appointment as administrator for buildings with 20 or more uncured violations lasting over 12 months, mandate a public list of noncompliant owners and managers, authorize additional contempt and penalty enforcement, and impose new licensing and financial consequences on property managers and owners.
The bill appears to reflect a strong pro-enforcement, tenant-protection posture aimed at chronic housing code violators. Because there are no committee transcripts or votes provided, there is no recorded public debate in the materials, but the structure of the bill suggests support from housing advocates and likely resistance from landlords, owners, and real estate professionals affected by the new penalties and public disclosure requirements.
The likely points of contention are the bill’s mandatory and punitive enforcement tools: automatic court proceedings for administrator appointment, public naming of owners and managers, cumulative violation counting across multiple buildings, suspension and retraining of real estate licensees, and $10,000-per-violation fines. Landlords and industry groups would likely argue that these measures are overly harsh or burdensome, while tenant advocates and housing enforcement proponents would likely argue they are necessary to address repeated unsafe conditions and noncompliance.