Enacts the "deed theft eviction protection act" in relation to prohibiting the eviction, removal, or dispossession of an owner of record from residential real property while title to such property is contested
A11299, the "deed theft eviction protection act," would amend the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law to bar courts from issuing or executing a warrant of eviction or removal against an owner of record when title to the residential property is actively being contested in court. The bill is aimed at situations involving alleged deed theft, forged or fraudulent deeds, coercion, undue influence, defective conveyances, disputed heirship, and other ownership disputes that can arise in Supreme Court, Surrogate's Court, or another court of competent jurisdiction.
The bill defines who qualifies as an "owner of record," what counts as "residential real property," and what it means for title to be "actively contested." It allows a stay of eviction based on proof of a pending filing such as a petition, complaint, notice of pendency, citation, or motion challenging ownership or possession. The stay would remain in place until the underlying title or possession dispute is finally resolved, although courts would still be able to issue orders addressing waste, illegal lockouts, harassment, safety threats, emergency repairs, or property preservation so long as those orders do not result in eviction before the dispute is decided.
If enacted, the bill would add a new section 756-b to the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law and create a mandatory stay mechanism in eviction and removal proceedings involving contested title to residential property. It would affect landlords, occupants, heirs, estate representatives, and homeowners involved in ownership disputes, and it would apply to one- to four-family homes, condominiums, cooperatives, and other residential dwellings used as a home. The act would take effect immediately and apply to pending and future cases where a warrant of eviction or removal has not yet been executed.
The bill appears to be framed positively as a homeowner-protection and anti-deed-theft measure, with its stated purpose focused on preventing displacement before courts resolve ownership disputes. The available context shows no recorded votes or committee transcript debate, so there is no documented opposition or amendment discussion in the materials provided. Based on the text alone, the bill is presented as a remedial consumer- and housing-protection proposal intended to preserve possession during litigation.
The main policy tension is between protecting alleged owners, heirs, and lawful occupants from being forced out before a court decides title, and preserving the ability of property owners or prevailing parties to regain possession through eviction or removal proceedings. The bill addresses this by requiring a stay when title is actively contested, but it could raise concerns about delay in possession for parties asserting superior title or about how broadly courts interpret "actively contested" and the types of filings sufficient to trigger protection. Another possible point of contention is the breadth of the definition of "owner of record," which includes people with colorable or recorded interests and claims through estate or inheritance proceedings.