New York Senate Bill S03689

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/29/25
• Refer: 1/29/25
• Engrossed: 5/15/25
• Refer: 5/15/25
• Refer: 1/7/26
• Engrossed: 3/24/26
• Refer: 3/24/26

Caption

Prohibits the eviction of tenants for using medical marihuana for a certified medical use.

Summary

Bill S03689 aims to amend the real property actions and proceedings law in New York to prohibit the eviction of tenants based on their certified medical use of medical marihuana. This legislation establishes that a tenant cannot be removed from their residential unit solely due to their medical marihuana use, providing a legal defense for tenants in eviction proceedings. Landlords may still seek eviction on other lawful grounds, but they must demonstrate that the eviction is not related to the tenant's medical marihuana use.

Impact

If enacted, this bill would significantly alter the legal landscape for tenants who use medical marihuana in New York, providing them with protections against eviction that are specifically linked to their medical use. It would reinforce the rights of tenants with medical conditions who rely on marihuana for treatment, ensuring that their housing security is not compromised due to their medical choices. This change could also influence landlord-tenant relationships and the enforcement of rental agreements in the state.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding Bill S03689 appears to be mixed, as reflected in the voting history. The bill received a majority of support in committee and on the Senate floor, indicating a favorable view among many legislators. However, the presence of dissenting votes suggests that there are concerns among some lawmakers regarding the implications of the bill on landlords' rights and the potential for misuse of the medical marihuana provisions.

Contention

Notable points of contention include the balance between tenant protections and landlords' rights. Some legislators expressed concerns that the bill could make it more difficult for landlords to manage their properties effectively, while others argued that it is essential to protect vulnerable tenants who require medical marihuana for legitimate health reasons. The differing views highlight the ongoing debate about the intersection of housing rights and medical use of controlled substances.