New York Assembly Bill A07774

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/10/25
• Refer: 4/10/25
• Refer: 1/7/26

Caption

Provides for an exclusion for treble damages in actions for forcible or unlawful entry or detainer where such treble damages are unavailable to a person who, not having entered a lease or license for such real property with the rightful owner, enters onto real property or otherwise settles on land or occupies real property without title, right, permission of the rightful owner, or payment of rent accepted by the rightful owner.

Summary

A07774 would amend section 853 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, which currently allows a person who has been forcibly or unlawfully removed from real property to recover treble damages from the wrongdoer. The bill adds a new exclusion stating that the term “person” for purposes of this treble-damages remedy does not include someone who entered or occupies property without a lease or license from the rightful owner, without title or permission, and without rent accepted by the owner. In practical terms, the bill narrows who can seek this enhanced civil remedy in unlawful entry or detainer cases. The measure is aimed at limiting treble-damages claims by individuals who are occupying land or buildings without legal authorization, including those who have settled on or occupied property without the owner’s consent. It would take effect immediately and apply to actions and proceedings commenced on or after the effective date, thereby changing the available remedy in future cases rather than altering already-filed matters.

Impact

The bill would amend the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law by carving out an express exception to the treble-damages provision in RPAPL section 853. As a result, unauthorized occupants who lack a lease, license, title, permission, or accepted rent from the owner would be barred from using this statute to seek triple damages for forcible or unlawful eviction or exclusion. The change would affect property owners, landlords, occupants, and litigants in ejectment, unlawful detainer, and related real property disputes by narrowing potential liability and reducing the leverage of certain plaintiffs in these cases.

Sentiment

No committee transcript or recorded vote information is available, so there is no documented legislative debate or roll-call sentiment to assess. Based on the bill text and caption, the proposal appears to reflect a pro-property-owner approach focused on limiting remedies for unauthorized occupants. The absence of recorded opposition or support in the provided materials means overall sentiment cannot be determined from legislative history, only inferred from the bill’s purpose.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely whether the bill unfairly restricts remedies for people who may have been removed from property in a forcible or unlawful manner but who also lack formal tenancy documents. Supporters would likely argue that treble damages should not be available to trespassers or squatters who never had permission to occupy the property, while critics may contend that the exclusion is too broad and could sweep in vulnerable occupants or people with informal arrangements who cannot prove a lease or accepted rent. The bill’s language draws a sharp line between lawful occupants and unauthorized occupants, and that distinction is where disputes would likely arise.