Requires a landlord to permit inspection of residential premises located within a designated superfund or brownfield site if requested by a tenant.
This bill creates a new section of the Real Property Law establishing a right to “residential environmental transparency” for tenants, residential lessees, and sublessees living in or otherwise eligible for inspection near a designated Superfund site or brownfield site. If a tenant requests it, the residence may be inspected and tested by government-employed or government-contracted inspectors under the procedures already created for the relevant contaminated site, and the testing may also include common areas as determined by the inspecting authority.
The bill requires landlords, lessors, and property owners to allow such inspection and testing within 60 days of the request or at the next available inspection date, and it bars them from denying an eligible request. A landlord may refuse only if a prior government inspection and testing has already been completed and the results were provided to the tenant. The bill also states that inspectors may not enter a residence unless the tenant has requested the inspection.
The bill would add a new tenant right and corresponding landlord duty under New York real property law, specifically by creating Real Property Law section 235-k. It would apply to residential properties associated with or located near designated Superfund or brownfield sites, and it would formalize access for environmental testing by state or government-contracted personnel. Landlords who fail to comply could face civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation, increasing to up to $5,000 for second violations, and repeated violations could allow tenants to seek a court order enforcing compliance.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the measure appears to be framed as a tenant-protection and public-health transparency bill. Its stated purpose suggests support for residents concerned about contamination exposure, especially in housing near hazardous waste or polluted sites. No contrary views are documented in the supplied record, so there is no clear evidence of formal opposition or divided sentiment in the available materials.
The main point of potential contention is the burden placed on landlords and property owners, who would be required to permit access for environmental inspection and testing upon tenant request and could face monetary penalties for noncompliance. Another possible issue is the scope of eligibility—whether a residence is “otherwise eligible” for inspection in relation to a nearby site—and how the testing authority determines the location and timing of inspections. The bill also balances tenant access against property rights by allowing landlords to refuse repeat inspections if prior government testing has already been completed and shared with the tenant.