Expands definition of eligible senior citizen and disabled person to include any member of the tenant's household lawfully occupying the premises as such person's residence who is 62 years of age with respect to condominium and cooperative conversion to provide protection to disabled and senior citizen non-purchasing residents of buildings that undergo cooperative or condominium conversions under an eviction plan even where such residents are not tenants of record in the buildings.
Summary
A07533 would expand the categories of residents protected during certain cooperative and condominium conversion proceedings under New York’s General Business Law. The bill amends multiple provisions governing eviction plans and non-eviction plans so that “eligible senior citizens” and “eligible disabled persons” are not limited to tenants of record and their spouses. Instead, the protections would also extend to any member of the tenant’s household who lawfully occupies the unit as a residence, so long as that household member meets the age or disability criteria and, in the case of a household member, has lived in the housing accommodation for at least one year before the relevant filing or submission date.
The bill also updates the disability definition used in these conversion protections. Current law refers to a person whose impairment prevents “substantial gainful employment,” while the bill replaces that language with the broader standard that the impairment “substantially limit[s] one or more major life activities.” It preserves the existing framework allowing qualifying residents to elect non-purchasing tenant status within specified time periods, and it keeps the rule that such an election does not bar a later purchase of the unit on the terms then offered to occupants.
In practical terms, the bill would affect landlords, sponsors, attorneys general review of conversion plans, and residents in buildings undergoing cooperative or condominium conversion. It would broaden who can claim senior-citizen or disability protections in conversion settings, potentially reducing the number of households that can be displaced or pressured to buy during a conversion. It would also align the disability language more closely with modern civil-rights style definitions of disability.
The overall sentiment reflected by the bill’s introduction is supportive of tenant protection and housing stability for vulnerable residents, especially seniors and people with disabilities living in converted buildings. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no recorded opposition or formal debate in the supplied materials. Based on the text alone, the main policy thrust is to expand eligibility and make the conversion protections more inclusive.
The main point of contention likely concerns how far conversion protections should extend beyond tenants of record. By including household members who are not named tenants, the bill could be viewed by property owners and conversion sponsors as broadening occupancy rights and limiting flexibility in conversion transactions. The one-year residency requirement for household members appears designed to limit that expansion, but the bill still materially enlarges the class of protected occupants.
Impact
The bill would amend sections of the General Business Law governing cooperative and condominium conversions, specifically the definitions of “eligible senior citizens” and “eligible disabled persons” in provisions related to eviction and non-eviction plans. It would extend those protections to certain household members lawfully residing in the unit, provided they are age-eligible or disabled and have lived in the accommodation for at least one year. It would also revise the disability standard from inability to engage in substantial gainful employment to the broader “substantially limit one or more major life activities” formulation, affecting who qualifies for conversion-related non-purchasing tenant protections.
Sentiment
The bill appears to be framed as a tenant-protection measure and is generally supportive of seniors, disabled residents, and household members living in buildings subject to cooperative or condominium conversion. Because no committee discussion or vote history is included, there is no direct evidence of formal support or opposition in the record provided. The text suggests a policy preference for expanding housing protections rather than restricting them.
Contention
The likely point of contention is the expansion of eligibility beyond tenants of record to include household members who are not named on the lease but have lived in the unit for at least a year. Housing owners, sponsors, or conversion proponents may view this as increasing the number of residents who can block or complicate conversion-related occupancy decisions. Supporters would likely argue that the change better reflects actual household composition and protects vulnerable residents who otherwise could be excluded from conversion safeguards.
Same As
Expands definition of eligible senior citizen and disabled person to include any member of the tenant's household lawfully occupying the premises as such person's residence who is 62 years of age with respect to condominium and cooperative conversion to provide protection to disabled and senior citizen non-purchasing residents of buildings that undergo cooperative or condominium conversions under an eviction plan even where such residents are not tenants of record in the buildings.
Expands definition of eligible senior citizen and disabled person to include any member of the tenant's household lawfully occupying the premises as such person's residence who is 62 years of age with respect to condominium and cooperative conversion to provide protection to disabled and senior citizen non-purchasing residents of buildings that undergo cooperative or condominium conversions under an eviction plan even where such residents are not tenants of record in the buildings.