Enacts the "anti-slumlord act"
This bill, titled the "anti-slumlord act," would create a new prohibition on the acquisition of residential property by owners who have outstanding immediate hazardous housing violations at properties they already own. It defines residential property broadly to include one- to two-family homes, multiple dwellings, and mixed-use buildings with residential units, and it defines immediate hazardous violations as serious housing, building, health, or fire safety code violations that pose an immediate threat to occupants, including New York City class C violations.
Under the bill, a property owner with unresolved immediate hazardous violations could not directly or indirectly acquire additional residential property in New York until those violations are corrected and certified by the issuing housing enforcement agency. The measure also requires a compliance certification, signed under penalty of perjury, before deeds or other conveyances can be recorded, and it directs recording officers to reject transactions lacking that certification. It further authorizes the Attorney General to seek to void unlawful conveyances and imposes civil penalties of at least $10,000 per violation, with penalty funds dedicated to emergency repairs by the enforcing agency.
The bill would amend the real property law, the multiple dwelling law, and the executive law. It adds a new article to the real property law establishing the acquisition ban, certification process, recording requirements, and enforcement provisions; it also adds a definition of immediate hazardous violation to the multiple dwelling law and encourages municipalities to adopt classifications identifying such violations. The executive law would be amended to give the Attorney General explicit authority to enforce the new article and invalidate noncompliant transfers.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly pro-tenant and enforcement-oriented, with the stated legislative intent focused on incentivizing landlords to fix dangerous conditions and preventing irresponsible owners from expanding their portfolios. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented opposition or support in the available materials beyond the bill’s own framing.
The main point of contention likely concerns the breadth and enforceability of the acquisition ban, especially for owners with unresolved violations at any property they own, the use of indirect ownership and shell-company rules, and the administrative burden placed on recording officers and housing agencies. Potential concerns may also include due process issues, the scope of municipal classifications, and whether the penalty structure and voidability of deeds could affect real estate transactions more broadly than intended.
The bill would add a new regulatory framework to New York property law that conditions the purchase or transfer of residential property on the absence of outstanding immediate hazardous violations at properties owned by the buyer or transferee. It would also require a sworn compliance certification before recording, authorize rejection of noncompliant deeds, and empower the Attorney General and housing enforcement agencies to enforce the restrictions and collect penalties. These changes would affect residential property owners, landlords, buyers, title and recording officials, and local and state housing enforcement agencies.
The bill’s stated purpose and structure indicate a strong reform-minded, tenant-protection sentiment aimed at curbing slumlord behavior and improving housing safety. The available record contains no committee debate or vote history, so there is no direct evidence of bipartisan support or opposition; however, the bill is clearly framed as an enforcement tool against negligent landlords rather than a neutral administrative change.
Likely areas of contention include whether it is appropriate to bar a property owner from acquiring new residential property based on violations at existing properties, how broadly "immediate hazardous violation" should be defined, and whether the law could be used against owners with disputed or partially corrected violations. Another likely issue is the practical burden on county clerks, city registers, and other recording officers, who must verify compliance certifications before recording deeds. Critics may also question the use of civil penalties, deed invalidation, and anti-evasion rules targeting related entities, shell companies, and straw purchasers.