Provides penalties when a landlord of a residential premises refuses to rent to a potential tenant on the basis that the potential tenant was involved in a past or pending landlord-tenant action or summary proceeding.
Summary
S09719 amends the Real Property Law to create a private right of action for a potential tenant who is denied housing because of involvement in a prior landlord-tenant dispute or summary proceeding. The bill targets refusals to rent based on a tenant’s past or pending housing-related legal action, and it makes clear that the prohibition applies to landlords and also to their agents, employees, or others authorized to lease the property.
Under the bill, an injured potential tenant could sue in Supreme Court for temporary and permanent injunctive relief, damages, costs, and reasonable attorney’s fees. The action would have a two-year limitations period running from when the tenant reasonably should have discovered the violation, and the tenant would not need to first report the matter to the Attorney General. The bill also preserves the Attorney General’s separate enforcement authority to seek injunctive relief and civil penalties, and it would take effect immediately.
Impact
The bill would expand enforcement of existing tenant anti-retaliation and anti-discrimination protections in Real Property Law section 227-f by adding a direct civil remedy for applicants denied housing because of prior landlord-tenant disputes. It would expose landlords, leasing agents, and other authorized representatives to private lawsuits for damages and equitable relief, while leaving state enforcement by the Attorney General intact. The practical effect would be to strengthen tenant protections in the rental market and increase legal risk for housing providers who screen out applicants based on prior housing litigation.
Sentiment
No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge formal sentiment. Based on the bill’s structure and caption, the measure appears intended as a tenant-protection and anti-retaliation bill, suggesting likely support from tenant advocates and housing-rights proponents. The absence of recorded opposition in the provided materials means any controversy is not documented here, though the bill’s creation of a private lawsuit and attorney’s-fee remedy could be viewed as burdensome by landlord interests.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the balance between protecting tenants from retaliation and preserving landlords’ discretion in tenant selection. Supporters would emphasize that applicants should not be penalized for asserting rights in prior housing disputes, while opponents may argue that the bill increases litigation exposure and limits screening practices. Another possible issue is the breadth of liability, since the bill reaches not only landlords but also agents, employees, and other authorized leasing persons, and allows suit without first involving the Attorney General.
Same As
Provides penalties when a landlord of a residential premises refuses to rent to a potential tenant on the basis that the potential tenant was involved in a past or pending landlord-tenant action or summary proceeding.
Provides penalties when a landlord of a residential premises refuses to rent to a potential tenant on the basis that the potential tenant was involved in a past or pending landlord-tenant action or summary proceeding.
Provides penalties when a landlord of a residential premises refuses to rent to a potential tenant on the basis that the potential tenant was involved in a past or pending landlord-tenant action or summary proceeding.