New York Assembly Bill A11135

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/24/26
• Refer: 4/24/26

Caption

Relates to expanding the definition of interim multiple dwelling to provide protections for certain residents

Summary

This bill amends the Multiple Dwelling Law to expand the definition of an “interim multiple dwelling” for a specific area in Manhattan: the blocks north of West 24th Street and south of West 27th Street, west of Tenth Avenue and east of Eleventh Avenue. Under current law, a building in that area can qualify if it was occupied by two or more independent families for twelve consecutive months during a specified 2015–2016 period. The bill adds language to preserve protections for remaining residential occupants even if the number of occupied units is reduced during or before that qualifying period, so long as the remaining occupants’ continuous residential use began before December 31, 1995 and the building had three or more families living independently for any twelve consecutive months between December 31, 1995 and December 31, 2016. The bill also clarifies that non-residential space existing as of the effective date may be converted to residential use only after a residential certificate of occupancy is obtained, and that such space remains exempt from the article even if part of the building qualifies as an interim multiple dwelling. The measure takes effect immediately and would alter how certain mixed-use or formerly residential buildings in the designated area are treated under New York’s multiple dwelling rules, especially for purposes of tenant protections and building classification. The general sentiment reflected by the bill’s caption and structure is protective of long-term residents, aiming to preserve housing protections for occupants who have lived in these buildings for many years. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented opposition or support in the supplied materials, but the bill appears designed to address a narrow housing-protection issue rather than a broad policy change. The main point of contention likely concerns the scope of the expanded protections and whether they should apply when unit counts have changed over time, particularly in buildings that have shifted between residential and non-residential uses. The bill favors residents who can show long-term continuous occupancy and historical family occupancy, while potentially limiting owners’ ability to argue that reductions in occupied units remove interim multiple dwelling status. Any dispute would likely center on eligibility criteria, the retroactive reach of the protections, and the impact on development or conversion plans in the affected neighborhood.

Impact

This bill would amend section 281 of the Multiple Dwelling Law to broaden the circumstances under which certain buildings in a defined Manhattan area qualify as interim multiple dwellings. It would preserve statutory protections for qualifying residential occupants even if the number of occupied units was reduced before or during the twelve-month qualifying period, provided the remaining occupants meet the bill’s long-term occupancy and historical family-occupancy requirements. It also reinforces restrictions on converting non-residential space to residential use without a residential certificate of occupancy, affecting building owners, tenants, and property managers in the specified area.

Sentiment

No committee transcript or vote data is available, so there is no recorded debate to gauge support or opposition. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears to be framed as a tenant-protection and housing-stability bill, suggesting a generally favorable posture toward preserving residential rights for long-term occupants. The absence of recorded votes or hearing comments means any broader political sentiment cannot be determined from the provided materials.

Contention

The likely controversy is whether the bill extends interim multiple dwelling protections too far by allowing buildings to retain protected status even after reductions in occupied residential units, including reductions occurring before the qualifying twelve-month period. Property owners or developers may object that the bill constrains redevelopment or conversion flexibility, while tenant advocates would likely support the added safeguards for residents with long-term continuous occupancy. Another possible point of dispute is the bill’s highly specific geographic and historical criteria, which may be viewed as narrowly tailored relief for a particular neighborhood rather than a general statewide rule.