Provides criteria for determining whether an individual is a transient occupant
This bill amends the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law to add criteria courts must consider when deciding whether a person staying in a hotel is a “transient occupant” rather than a tenant. Under the bill, a person who has been in possession of hotel rooms for 30 consecutive days or more is generally included as a tenant, but courts would be directed to evaluate the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the stay is truly temporary lodging. The listed factors include whether the person has a primary residence elsewhere, maintains indicia of residence at another location such as mail, identification, voter registration, or tax filings, the location of employment or principal business, the purpose of the hotel stay, and any other facts showing temporary use of the premises.
The bill also clarifies that a tenant does not include a squatter, defining a squatter as someone who enters or remains on property without permission, title, or right. It preserves existing procedures requiring that tenants or lawful occupants be removed only through a special proceeding, and it states that where there is a conflict with existing squatter-related provisions in RPAPL section 713, that section controls. The act would take effect immediately.
The bill would modify RPAPL section 711, which governs when a landlord may bring a summary proceeding against certain occupants, by supplying a more detailed standard for distinguishing hotel guests from tenants. This could affect eviction and possession disputes involving extended-stay hotel residents, hotels, property owners, and occupants by giving courts specific factors to assess transient status and by reinforcing that squatters are excluded from tenant protections. It would not create a new cause of action, but it would change how courts interpret occupancy status under existing landlord-tenant law.
The available record shows the bill was introduced and referred to the Assembly Judiciary Committee, with no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided materials. Based on the text, the measure appears aimed at clarifying an area of landlord-tenant law and addressing uncertainty around hotel occupants and squatters, suggesting a generally practical and procedural purpose rather than a highly ideological one. No formal support or opposition is documented in the supplied context.
The main point of potential contention is the line between a transient hotel occupant and a tenant, since the bill gives courts discretion to look at multiple factors rather than relying on a single bright-line rule. Property owners and hotels may favor the added clarity and the explicit exclusion of squatters, while occupants of extended-stay hotels may be concerned that the criteria could make it easier to characterize them as non-tenants and limit protections. Another possible issue is how the new language interacts with existing RPAPL section 713 provisions, though the bill states that section 713 controls in the event of conflict.