Provides that a landlord shall provide a prospective tenant a written disclosure of the tenant screening criteria used to evaluate rental applications prior to accepting any fee, deposit, or screening information from such prospective tenant.
This bill would add a new section to the New York Real Property Law requiring landlords to give prospective tenants a clear, conspicuous written disclosure of the tenant screening criteria they use before accepting any application fee, deposit, or screening information. The disclosure must identify the factors the landlord considers, such as credit history or minimum credit score, criminal history policies, rental history, income requirements, reference requirements, and how incomplete or inaccurate applications are handled. It must also state whether the landlord will obtain a tenant screening report from a consumer reporting agency and provide the agency’s contact information if applicable, along with a summary of the applicant’s rights under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and related state consumer-reporting law.
The bill also requires the disclosure to be provided before any application is evaluated or any fee is accepted, and it allows the disclosure to be included with the rental application if it is clearly labeled and conspicuous. Applicants must sign an acknowledgment that they received the disclosure, and if they do not sign, there is a rebuttable presumption that the disclosure was not provided. If a landlord rejects an applicant without having provided the required disclosure, the landlord must refund the full application-related fee or charge, and must mail or otherwise deliver the refund within 14 days after a written request.
The bill’s impact on state law would be to create a new landlord disclosure obligation in the real property law and to add a refund remedy tied to noncompliance. It would affect landlords, managing agents, and other persons with the right to rent housing accommodations, as well as prospective tenants who would gain advance notice of screening standards and a clearer basis to understand why an application may be denied. The measure also reinforces existing consumer-reporting protections by requiring notice of rights related to tenant screening reports.
The general sentiment reflected by the bill text is tenant-protective and transparency-focused, aiming to reduce surprise denials and make rental screening standards more predictable. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from the legislative process in the materials supplied. Based on the bill’s structure, likely points of contention would include whether the disclosure requirement imposes administrative burdens on landlords, whether the refund remedy is sufficiently enforceable, and how much detail landlords must reveal about subjective screening criteria.
Notable points of contention would likely center on the balance between tenant fairness and landlord discretion. Tenant advocates would likely favor the bill for increasing transparency and accountability in the rental application process, while landlord interests may object to mandatory disclosure of screening standards, the presumption tied to an unsigned acknowledgment, and the automatic refund requirement when disclosure is missing. The bill also references existing legal limits on rental history and income screening, suggesting an effort to align disclosure duties with current housing and anti-discrimination law rather than to expand substantive screening criteria themselves.
The bill would amend the Real Property Law by adding a new section 238-b establishing mandatory pre-application disclosure rules for tenant screening criteria. It would require landlords to disclose screening standards before collecting application-related fees or screening information, require acknowledgment of receipt, and mandate refunds when a landlord rejects an applicant without having provided the disclosure. The measure would primarily affect landlords, managing agents, and rental applicants, while also cross-referencing federal Fair Credit Reporting Act rights and state consumer-reporting protections.
The bill appears generally favorable to tenants and consumer transparency, with its core purpose being to ensure applicants know the standards that will be used to evaluate them before paying fees or submitting information. No committee discussion or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded legislative debate in the supplied materials. Based on the text alone, the bill is framed as a disclosure and fairness measure rather than a substantive restriction on landlord screening practices.
The main likely points of contention are between tenant advocates and landlord representatives. Supporters would likely emphasize transparency, informed consent, and fee refunds when disclosure is not provided, while opponents may argue that the bill adds compliance burdens, could expose screening practices to challenge, and may create disputes over whether disclosure was adequately given. The rebuttable presumption tied to an unsigned acknowledgment and the mandatory refund provision are likely to be the most debated enforcement features.