Provides that in an action or proceeding to recover possession of residential real property, the court shall stay the issuance or execution of a warrant of eviction or removal where an owner of record demonstrates that title, ownership, deed validity, conveyance, heirship, inheritance interest, or the right to possess the property is contested in a court of competent jurisdiction, and such stay shall remain in effect until the court in which such interest in the property is contested issues a final judgment unless the court issuing such stay finds good cause to modify or lift such stay.
S10293, the “Deed Theft Eviction Protection Act,” would amend New York’s Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law to require courts to stay the issuance or execution of a warrant of eviction or removal when an owner of record shows that title or ownership of residential property is actively being contested in court. The bill is aimed at situations involving alleged deed theft, forged or fraudulent conveyances, coercion, undue influence, disputed heirship, inheritance claims, and other challenges to the validity of a deed or transfer.
The measure defines “owner of record” broadly to include not only named owners but also heirs, distributees, executors, administrators, trustees, and others with a recorded or colorable ownership interest in residential property. It also defines “actively contested” to include a wide range of filings in Supreme Court, Surrogate’s Court, or another court of competent jurisdiction, such as petitions, complaints, notices of pendency, objections, or motions challenging title or possession. The stay would remain in place until the underlying ownership dispute is finally resolved, unless the court finds good cause to modify or lift it.
The bill would add a new section 756-b to the RPAPL and create a mandatory eviction-stay mechanism for residential properties while ownership disputes are pending. It would apply to one- to four-family homes, condominiums, cooperative units, and other residential dwellings used as homes, and it would cover pending and future cases where a warrant of eviction or removal has not yet been executed. The bill preserves a court’s ability to issue emergency orders for safety, waste, illegal lockouts, harassment, dangerous conditions, or repairs, but bars those orders from resulting in eviction before the title dispute is resolved.
The bill’s stated purpose and structure reflect a strongly protective posture toward homeowners, heirs, and families who may be vulnerable to displacement before courts determine rightful ownership. The overall tone of the legislation is remedial and anti-fraud, suggesting support for people alleging deed theft or other improper transfers. No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no documented recorded debate or formal vote sentiment to assess beyond the bill text itself.
The main point of potential contention is the balance between protecting occupants with colorable ownership claims and preserving the ability of property owners, landlords, or other parties to obtain possession when they believe they have lawful rights. Critics could argue that the bill may delay possession proceedings and create uncertainty in housing disputes, especially where claims are disputed or strategically raised. Supporters are likely to emphasize the risk of irreparable harm from wrongful displacement and the need to prevent eviction before courts resolve title, heirship, or deed-validity questions.