Requires a notice informing tenants of their rights to be provided to tenants at the time they execute a residential lease and to be posted in certain buildings.
This bill creates a new section of the Real Property Law establishing a “tenants’ bill of rights” for tenants who occupy a rental property as their primary residence. The bill lists a set of existing tenant protections that would be collected into one notice, including the warranty of habitability, the right to organize with other tenants, anti-retaliation protections, subletting and assignment rights in certain buildings, notice requirements for rent increases or non-renewal, lease termination rights, utility offset rights, rent receipts, limits on mandatory electronic rent payment systems, and security deposit/advance rent protections.
The bill also requires landlords to provide this notice in several ways. A copy must be attached to each written lease and given to the tenant when the lease is executed, and it must also be provided to tenants entering oral leases. In buildings with more than six rental units, landlords must post the notice in a visible location accessible to tenants. The bill applies broadly to residential leases, including subsidized, rent-regulated, and rent-stabilized units, but exempts owner-occupied buildings with six or fewer units, certain hotel and rooming-house arrangements, dormitories, shelters, employees’ quarters, non-residential properties, and owner-occupied cooperative and condominium units.
The bill’s main legal effect is procedural and informational rather than creating many new substantive tenant rights. It does not appear to expand the underlying rights themselves; instead, it consolidates and publicizes rights already found in multiple provisions of the Real Property Law and General Obligations Law. If enacted, it would impose a new disclosure and posting obligation on landlords statewide and make tenant-rights information more standardized and visible at the point of lease signing and in larger residential buildings.
Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented debate or formal voting sentiment in the supplied materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears tenant-protective and aimed at improving awareness and enforcement of existing protections. The likely policy rationale is to help tenants understand their rights and reduce disputes arising from lack of notice, especially in larger or more complex rental settings.
No specific points of contention are documented in the available record, but the most likely areas of concern are the compliance burden on landlords, the breadth of the notice requirement, and the inclusion of rent-regulated and subsidized housing. Exemptions for small owner-occupied buildings and certain special-use properties suggest an attempt to limit the burden in settings where formal notice posting may be less practical.
The bill would amend the Real Property Law by adding section 230-a and would require landlords statewide to provide a standardized tenants’ bill of rights notice with residential leases and, in larger buildings, to post the notice in a common area. It would also cross-reference and effectively spotlight existing tenant protections in the Real Property Law and General Obligations Law, including habitability, retaliation, rent notice, subletting, lease termination, rent receipts, electronic payment limits, and security deposit rules. The bill would apply to most residential tenancies, including subsidized, rent-regulated, and rent-stabilized units, while exempting several categories such as small owner-occupied buildings and certain institutional or nonresidential properties.
The available materials suggest a generally pro-tenant, consumer-information approach with no recorded opposition in the provided transcripts or votes. The bill appears designed to make existing tenant rights more accessible and understandable, which typically aligns with tenant advocacy goals. Because no committee discussion or vote history is included, there is no direct evidence of formal support or resistance beyond the bill’s text and purpose.
No specific contention is documented in the supplied record. Potential points of dispute, based on the bill’s structure, could include the administrative burden on landlords to distribute and post the notice, whether the posting requirement is necessary in all covered buildings, and the inclusion of rent-regulated and subsidized units within the general rule. Landlords and property owners may be more likely to object to the compliance requirements, while tenant advocates would likely support the measure as a transparency and enforcement tool.