Expands the definition of interim multiple dwelling (lofts) to provide protections for certain remaining, long time residents.
S10509 amends the New York Multiple Dwelling Law to expand the definition of an “interim multiple dwelling” for certain loft buildings in Manhattan. The bill specifically covers buildings, structures, or portions of structures located north of West 24th Street and south of West 27th Street, west of Tenth Avenue and east of Eleventh Avenue, in a city of more than one million people. It would treat qualifying properties as interim multiple dwellings if they were used as residences by two or more independent families for 12 consecutive months during the period from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2016, subject to the other conditions of the existing subdivision except for the usual unit-count requirement.
The bill also adds protection for remaining residential occupants when the number of occupied units drops after the qualifying period, and even when the reduction happened during or before that period, so long as the remaining occupants’ continuous residential use began before December 31, 1995 and the building had at least three independent families living there for any 12 consecutive months between December 31, 1995 and December 31, 2016. In addition, non-residential space existing on the effective date could only be converted to residential use after obtaining a residential certificate of occupancy, and such space would remain exempt from the article even if part of the building is deemed an interim multiple dwelling.
This bill would amend the Multiple Dwelling Law’s loft protections by broadening which buildings in the specified Manhattan area can qualify as interim multiple dwellings and by preserving protections for certain long-term residents even if occupancy levels later decline. It would affect property owners, tenants, and loft occupants in the designated area by potentially extending residential protections, limiting the ability to remove those protections based on reduced occupancy, and imposing a certificate-of-occupancy requirement before certain non-residential spaces can be converted to residential use.
The available context suggests generally supportive intent, with the bill caption describing it as a measure to protect certain remaining long-time residents. No committee transcript or vote data is provided, so there is no recorded debate or formal vote history to indicate broader legislative sentiment. Based on the text alone, the bill appears designed to preserve housing protections rather than create new restrictions broadly, which typically aligns with tenant-protection goals.
The main likely point of contention is the bill’s targeted expansion of loft-law protections in a very specific geographic area of Manhattan, which may be viewed by property owners as increasing regulatory burdens or limiting redevelopment flexibility. Another possible issue is the retroactive-looking protection for remaining occupants despite reductions in occupied units, which could be seen as favoring long-term residential occupants over owners seeking to challenge interim multiple dwelling status. No direct objections or supporters are documented in the provided materials, so these concerns are inferred from the statutory changes themselves.