New York Senate Bill S09936

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/16/26
• Refer: 4/16/26

Caption

Provides that in any jurisdiction in which a party is eligible under local law for free legal counsel, if such party has in good faith attempted to secure such counsel and is unable to obtain counsel through no fault of their own, the court shall adjourn the trial of the issue for consecutive periods of not less than fourteen days each until the party is able to secure counsel.

Summary

S09936 amends the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, specifically the section governing adjournments in summary eviction proceedings and other landlord-tenant cases. The bill creates a new rule for jurisdictions that provide free legal counsel under local law: if a party is eligible for that counsel and has in good faith tried, but through no fault of their own cannot obtain it, the court must orally notify the party of that right and adjourn the trial for at least 30 days to allow time to retain and consult counsel. The court must also grant additional 30-day adjournments as needed until counsel is secured. The bill also revises the existing rules for when courts may require respondents to deposit rent or use-and-occupancy payments during a summary proceeding. It preserves the court’s authority to order such deposits after certain adjournment thresholds, but clarifies that an initial adjournment sought by an unrepresented respondent to obtain counsel does not count against the respondent for this purpose, including adjournments under the new counsel-notification provision. The bill is intended to operate immediately and apply to pending cases.

Impact

This bill would change eviction and housing court procedure by expanding mandatory adjournment rights in jurisdictions with local right-to-counsel programs and by delaying when a court may require rent or use-and-occupancy deposits from respondents. It affects RPAPL section 745 and would apply to ongoing and future proceedings, strengthening procedural protections for tenants or other respondents who are eligible for free counsel and are still trying to obtain representation. It also preserves existing exceptions to deposit orders for certain defenses, including improper party status, eviction defenses, social services defenses, hazardous housing violations, rent overcharge claims, illegal occupancy/building-code issues, and lack of personal jurisdiction.

Sentiment

The bill’s apparent purpose is strongly pro-tenant and pro-right-to-counsel, reflecting support for ensuring meaningful access to legal representation before eviction trials proceed. The caption and text suggest a policy preference for giving eligible parties additional time to secure counsel and for preventing procedural deadlines from undermining that right. No votes or committee transcript excerpts were provided, so there is no recorded opposition or support in the supplied materials, but the structure of the bill indicates a generally tenant-protective approach.

Contention

The main point of potential contention is the balance between tenant access to counsel and landlord interests in moving cases forward and securing interim rent or use-and-occupancy payments. Landlords and housing providers may view the mandatory 30-day adjournments and exclusion of counsel-seeking adjournments from the deposit-counting rules as delays that can increase arrears and prolong possession disputes. Tenant advocates, by contrast, would likely support the bill as necessary to make local right-to-counsel laws effective in practice and to prevent unrepresented parties from being pressured into proceedings before they can obtain legal help.