Provides criteria for determining whether an individual is a transient occupant when determining whether a landlord-tenant relationship exists.
S10464 amends the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law to add criteria courts must use when deciding whether a person staying in a hotel is a “transient occupant” rather than a tenant. Under the bill, a hotel resident who has been in possession for 30 consecutive days or more is generally treated as a tenant unless the person is found to be transient based on the totality of the circumstances. The bill directs courts to consider factors such as whether the person has a primary residence elsewhere, whether they maintain indicia of residence at another location, where they work or conduct business, the purpose of the hotel stay, and any other facts showing the stay is temporary lodging.
The bill also clarifies that a tenant does not include a squatter, defining a squatter as someone who enters or remains on property without permission or legal right. It states that if there is any conflict between this bill’s squatter language and existing RPAPL section 713(3), the existing section controls. The measure leaves in place the rule that tenants and lawful occupants may be removed only through a special proceeding, and it takes effect immediately.
Its practical impact would be to give courts and landlords a more detailed framework for distinguishing between long-term hotel occupants who may have tenant protections and short-term guests who are merely transient. That could affect eviction proceedings, hotel housing disputes, and the rights of people living in extended-stay hotels or similar accommodations, while also reinforcing the separate treatment of squatters under state law.
The overall sentiment reflected by the bill’s framing is protective of property owners and housing providers while aiming to reduce ambiguity in landlord-tenant disputes. Because there were no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented public debate in the materials, but the bill’s structure suggests an effort to tighten the legal test for transient occupancy and limit disputes over when hotel stays become tenancies.
The main point of potential contention is the line between temporary lodging and de facto residency. People living in hotels for extended periods may argue they should receive tenant protections, while landlords and hotel operators may favor clearer authority to treat such occupants as transient guests. The squatter definition may also be significant in disputes over unauthorized occupancy, though the bill expressly defers to existing law where conflicts arise.
The bill would amend RPAPL section 711 to specify how courts determine whether a hotel occupant is a transient occupant, thereby affecting when a landlord-tenant relationship exists for hotel residents staying 30 days or more. It would add a nonexclusive list of factors for courts to weigh, including primary residence, mailing and official records, employment location, and the purpose of the stay, and it would expressly exclude squatters from the definition of tenant. The measure would primarily affect landlords, hotel operators, extended-stay occupants, and courts handling eviction and possession proceedings.
No committee discussion or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of public support or opposition in the supplied materials. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to be framed as a clarification of existing housing law and a tool for distinguishing temporary hotel guests from tenants, which suggests a generally pro-landlord, anti-ambiguity policy approach. The absence of recorded debate makes the overall sentiment difficult to measure beyond the bill’s statutory design.
The likely point of contention is whether the bill’s criteria are too restrictive for people who live in hotels long-term and may rely on tenant protections. Advocates for occupants could argue that the totality-of-the-circumstances test still leaves room for inconsistent outcomes or could be used to deny tenancy status to vulnerable residents. On the other side, landlords and hotel operators are likely to support the clearer factors and the explicit squatter exclusion, viewing them as necessary to prevent misuse of tenant protections and to streamline possession disputes.