New York Senate Bill S09707

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/2/26
• Refer: 4/2/26

Caption

Prohibits temporary major capital improvement increases for buildings where the owner has demonstrated a pattern of violations unless the applicant shows by clear and convincing evidence that the proposed improvement will directly and substantially remedy those violations.

Summary

S09707 would amend New York’s Emergency Housing Rent Control Law to narrow when landlords can pass certain renovation costs through to rent-regulated tenants. Specifically, it would bar temporary major capital improvement (MCI) rent increases and individual apartment improvement (IAI) rent increases not only when a building or unit has outstanding hazardous or immediately hazardous code violations, but also when the owner or someone acting on the owner’s behalf has shown a recent pattern of violations. The bill defines that pattern as three or more qualifying hazardous or immediately hazardous violations within a 24-month look-back period, with the possibility that the period could be extended by regulation to 36 months. The bill also limits the types of violations that count toward the pattern to serious conditions such as heat or hot-water failures, elevator or vertical transportation problems, fire-safety issues, pest or vermin infestations, mold, moisture, lead-based paint, and structural or facade hazards. If an owner falls within this pattern-based restriction, they may still seek the rent increase only by proving by clear and convincing evidence that the proposed improvement will directly and substantially remedy the violations. The measure would take effect immediately upon enactment.

Impact

This bill would amend section 8-a of chapter 274 of the Laws of 1946, the Emergency Housing Rent Control Law, as modified in 2019, by adding a new pattern-of-violations test that restricts rent increases tied to building and apartment improvements. It would affect owners of rent-regulated housing, tenants in those units, and the state and local agencies that administer and enforce housing and building code violations. In practice, it would make it harder for landlords with recent histories of serious code problems to obtain MCI or IAI rent surcharges unless they can show the work directly fixes the violations at issue.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes, the measure appears to be framed as a tenant-protection and housing-quality enforcement bill. Its stated approach suggests support for stronger accountability for landlords who repeatedly allow hazardous conditions to persist, while preserving a narrow path for increases when improvements genuinely cure the violations. No formal vote history or transcript is available here, so there is no documented opposition or support beyond the bill’s protective policy design.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely to be the new restriction on rent increases for owners with a recent pattern of serious violations. Tenant advocates would likely view the bill as closing a loophole that allows landlords to raise rents while maintaining unsafe conditions, while landlord and housing-industry interests may argue that the standard is too broad, could penalize owners for past violations even when unrelated to the proposed work, and may discourage needed building repairs. A second likely dispute is the evidentiary burden: the bill requires clear and convincing evidence that the improvement directly and substantially remedies the violations, which is a high threshold and could be seen as either an important safeguard or an administrative hurdle.