New York Senate Bill S01174

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/8/25
• Refer: 1/8/25
• Refer: 1/7/26

Caption

Adds to the definition of trespassing in the third degree, not having entered a lease or license for such building or real property with the rightful owner, enters or remains in such building or upon such real property or otherwise occupies such building or real property without title, right, permission of the rightful owner, or payment of rent accepted by the rightful owner.

Summary

S01174 would amend New York’s penal law governing criminal trespass in the third degree. In addition to the existing railroad no-trespass provision, the bill adds a new category covering a person who enters or remains in a building or on real property without having entered into a lease or license with the owner, and without title, right, permission, or payment of rent accepted by the owner. The bill also states that, in a prosecution under this new subdivision, it is an affirmative defense if the defendant is a tenant as defined in the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law. In practical terms, the bill appears aimed at expanding criminal trespass liability to people occupying property without a formal rental relationship or owner consent, while preserving a defense for lawful tenants. It would make this change effective immediately and would amend the Penal Law’s third-degree trespass statute rather than creating a separate offense.

Impact

The bill would broaden Penal Law section 140.10 by adding a new trespass category tied to unauthorized occupation of buildings or real property. This could affect property owners, occupants, landlords, tenants, and law enforcement by giving prosecutors an additional basis to charge unauthorized presence or occupation as criminal trespass in the third degree. It also interacts with landlord-tenant law by incorporating the RPAPL definition of tenant as an affirmative defense, which may limit the bill’s reach against lawful tenants and frame disputes over occupancy status within criminal proceedings.

Sentiment

There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided materials, so no formal legislative debate or roll-call sentiment is available. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to reflect a pro-property-owner, anti-squatting approach, suggesting support from those concerned about unauthorized occupancy and opposition or caution from those worried about criminalizing housing disputes or affecting tenants. Because no discussion snippets are provided, the overall sentiment cannot be measured beyond the bill’s apparent policy direction.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely whether unauthorized occupancy should be treated as a criminal trespass issue or handled through civil landlord-tenant remedies. Supporters would likely emphasize property rights, nuisance abatement, and enforcement against squatters or unlawful occupants. Opponents may argue that the language could sweep too broadly, create confusion in housing disputes, or risk criminalizing people in contested possession situations. The affirmative defense for tenants suggests an effort to protect lawful renters, but disputes over who qualifies as a tenant, whether rent was accepted, and whether permission existed would likely be central issues.