N.Y. Real Property Law § 223-b

No Retaliatory Eviction: N.Y. Real Property Law § 223-b

N.Y. Real Property Law § 223-b bans evicting or refusing lease renewals after tenant complaints and sets a one-year presumption of retaliation by the landlord.

Official text N.Y. Real Property Law § 223-b — New York

§ 223-b. Retaliation by landlord against tenant. 1. No landlord of premises or units to which this section is applicable shall serve a notice to quit upon any tenant or commence any action to recover real property or summary proceeding to recover possession of real property in retaliation for:

a. A good faith complaint, by or in behalf of the tenant, to the landlord, the landlord's agent or a governmental authority of the landlord's alleged violation of any health or safety law, regulation, code, or ordinance, the warranty of habitability under section two hundred thirty-five-b of this article, the duty to repair under sections seventy-eight, seventy-nine, and eighty of the multiple dwelling law or section one hundred seventy-four of the multiple residence law, or any law or regulation which has as its objective the regulation of premises used for dwelling purposes or which pertains to the offense of rent gouging in the third, second or first degree; or

b. Actions taken in good faith, by or in behalf of the tenant, to secure or enforce any rights under the lease or rental agreement, the warranty of habitability under section two hundred thirty-five-b of this article, the duty to repair under sections seventy-eight, seventy-nine, and eighty of the multiple dwelling law or section one hundred seventy-four of the multiple residence law, or under any other law of the state of New York, or of its governmental subdivisions, or of the United States which has as its objective the regulation of premises used for dwelling purposes or which pertains to the offense of rent gouging in the third, second or first degree; or

c. The tenant's participation in the activities of a tenant's organization.

  • 2. No landlord of premises or units to which this section is applicable or such landlord's agent shall substantially alter the terms of the tenancy in retaliation for any actions set forth in paragraphs a, b, and c of subdivision one of this section. Substantial alteration shall include, but is not limited to, the refusal to continue a tenancy of the tenant, upon expiration of the tenant's lease, to renew the lease or offer a new lease, or offering a new lease with an unreasonable rent increase; provided, however, that a landlord shall not be required under this section to offer a new lease or a lease renewal for a term greater than one year.
  • 3. A landlord shall be subject to a civil action for damages, attorney's fees and costs and other appropriate relief, including injunctive and other equitable remedies, as may be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction in any case in which the landlord has violated the provisions of this section.
  • 4. In any action to recover real property or summary proceeding to recover possession of real property, judgment shall be entered for the tenant if the court finds that the landlord is acting in retaliation for any action set forth in paragraphs a, b, and c of subdivision one of this section. Retaliation shall be asserted as an affirmative defense in such action or proceeding. The tenant shall not be relieved of the obligation to pay any rent for which he is otherwise liable.
  • 5. In an action or proceeding instituted against a tenant of premises or a unit to which this section is applicable, a rebuttable presumption that the landlord is acting in retaliation shall be created if the tenant establishes that the landlord served a notice to quit, or instituted an action or proceeding to recover possession, or attempted to substantially alter the terms of the tenancy, within one year after:

a. A good faith complaint was made, by or in behalf of the tenant, to the landlord, the landlord's agent or a governmental authority of the landlord's violation of any health or safety law, regulation, code, or ordinance, the warranty of habitability under section two hundred thirty-five-b of this article, the duty to repair under sections seventy-eight, seventy-nine, and eighty of the multiple dwelling law or section one hundred seventy-four of the multiple residence law, or any law or regulation which has as its objective the regulation of premises used for dwelling purposes or which pertains to the offense of rent gouging in the third, second or first degree; or

b. The tenant in good faith took action to secure or enforce against the landlord or his agents any rights under the lease or rental agreement, the warranty of habitability under section two hundred thirty-five-b of this article, the duty to repair under sections seventy-eight, seventy-nine, and eighty of the multiple dwelling law or section one hundred seventy-four of the multiple residence law, or under any other law of the state of New York, or of its governmental subdivisions, or of the United States which has as its objective the regulation of premises used for dwelling purposes or which pertains to the offense of rent gouging in the third, second or first degree.

c. Judgment under subdivision three or four of this section was entered for the tenant in a previous action between the parties; or an inspection was made, an order was entered, or other action was taken as a result of a complaint or act described in paragraph a or b of this subdivision.

The effect of the presumption shall be to require the landlord to establish a non-retaliatory motive for his acts by a preponderance of the evidence.

5-a. Any lease provision which seeks to assess a fee, penalty or dollar charge, in addition to the stated rent, against a tenant because such tenant files a bona fide complaint with the landlord, the landlord's agent or a building code officer regarding the condition of such tenant's leased premises shall be null and void as being against public policy. A landlord or agent of the landlord who seeks to enforce such a fee, penalty or charge shall be liable to the tenant for triple the amount of such fee, penalty or charge.

  • 6. This section shall apply to all rental residential premises except owner-occupied dwellings with less than four units. However, its provisions shall not be given effect in any case in which it is established that the condition from which the complaint or action arose was caused by the tenant, a member of the tenant's household, or a guest of the tenant. Nor shall it apply in a case where a tenancy was terminated pursuant to the terms of a lease as a result of a bona fide transfer of ownership.

Text as published in the 2026 snapshot of the code.

Source: Vaquill Open US Law, compiled from official state publishers (huggingface.co), reproduced under license CC BY 4.0.

Read this provision at the official source →

What it actually says

Section 223-b protects three things a tenant might have done: a good faith complaint to the landlord, the landlord's agent or a government authority about a violation of health or safety law or of the warranty of habitability; a good faith step to enforce rights under the lease or under housing law; and participation in a tenants' organization. If the tenant did any of those, the landlord may not serve a notice to quit or start a proceeding to recover possession in retaliation.

Subdivision 2 closes the obvious route around that. It is also retaliation to "substantially alter the terms of the tenancy", and the text says substantial alteration includes refusing to continue the tenancy, refusing to renew or offer a new lease, or offering a new lease with an unreasonable rent increase. The same subdivision sets the limit on that protection: the landlord is never required to offer a term longer than one year.

The mechanism that makes the section usable is subdivision 5. If the landlord served a notice to quit, started a proceeding, or tried to alter the tenancy within one year after the complaint, the enforcement action or the earlier tenant judgment or inspection, a rebuttable presumption of retaliation arises, and the landlord then has to prove a non-retaliatory motive by a preponderance of the evidence. Subdivision 4 says retaliation must be raised as an affirmative defense in the possession case, and adds a point tenants often miss: winning on retaliation does not relieve the tenant of rent otherwise owed. Subdivision 5-a voids any lease clause charging a fee or penalty for making a bona fide complaint, and makes a landlord who tries to enforce one liable for triple the amount. Subdivision 6 sets the outer boundary: the section applies to all rental residential premises except owner-occupied dwellings with fewer than four units, does not apply where the condition complained of was caused by the tenant's own household or guest, and does not apply where the tenancy ended under the lease as a result of a bona fide transfer of ownership.

When it applies

  • A notice to quit arrives weeks after the tenant called the housing inspector.
  • A lease is not renewed after the tenant sued over conditions or joined a tenants' association.
  • A renewal is offered with a steep increase shortly after a complaint about heat or repairs.
  • The lease contains a clause charging the tenant a fee for filing a complaint about the apartment.
  • The landlord starts a holdover proceeding within a year of an inspection ordered because of the tenant's complaint.

What this section does not say

  • It does not cancel rent. Subdivision 4 says the tenant is not relieved of the obligation to pay rent otherwise owed, even where retaliation is established.
  • It does not apply to every building. Owner-occupied dwellings with fewer than four units are excluded by subdivision 6.
  • It does not protect a complaint about a condition the tenant's own household or guest caused - subdivision 6 disapplies the section in that case.
  • It does not guarantee a long lease. A landlord is never required by this section to offer a renewal for a term greater than one year.
  • The presumption is not a finding. It shifts the burden to the landlord to show a non-retaliatory motive; it does not decide the case.

Worked examples

Invented situations, written to show how the wording bites. They are not real cases, not judgments and not precedent, and nothing here predicts what would happen in yours.

Illustrative example

A tenant calls the city in February about a building with no heat. In April, with the lease running to the summer, the landlord tells them it will not be renewed.

How the wording applies

Refusing to renew or to offer a new lease is expressly a substantial alteration of the terms of the tenancy, and therefore retaliation where it follows a protected act. Because the non-renewal came within one year of the good faith complaint, subdivision 5 raises a rebuttable presumption of retaliation and puts the landlord to proving a non-retaliatory motive by a preponderance of the evidence. So the starting position turns on the date of the complaint relative to the landlord's step.

How the parties settled it

They agree a one-year renewal at the increase offered to the rest of the building, and the landlord commits to a written repair schedule for the boiler that prompted the call.

Illustrative example

Weeks after a tenant brings a case about conditions, the renewal arrives with an increase far above anything else offered in the building that year.

How the wording applies

Subdivision 2 treats offering a new lease with an unreasonable rent increase as a substantial alteration of the tenancy, and the one-year presumption applies to an attempt to alter the tenancy exactly as it does to a notice to quit. Two boundaries are worth knowing: the section never requires a term longer than one year, and establishing retaliation does not relieve the tenant of rent otherwise owed.

How the parties settled it

They settle on an increase in line with the other renewals that year, and the tenant discontinues the conditions case once the outstanding work is completed by an agreed date.

Illustrative example

A lease contains a clause charging the tenant an administrative fee every time they file a complaint about the apartment with an agency. The landlord deducts two such fees from the deposit.

How the wording applies

Subdivision 5-a voids any lease provision imposing a fee or penalty for making a bona fide complaint, and makes a landlord who attempts to enforce one liable for three times the amount. Almost nobody knows the treble figure is there. It turns on whether the complaints were bona fide, not on whether the landlord accepted that the condition existed.

How the parties settled it

The fees come back at three times what was taken, the clause is removed from the lease going forward, and the tenant agrees to give the managing agent a fortnight on repair issues before escalating them.

How courts have read it

Decisions construing this provision. The question and the summary are ours; the quoted sentence is the court's own words, taken from the published opinion. These are the decisions in our corpus, not every decision there is, and nothing here predicts any other case. Reported 2003 to 2017.

Pena v. Lockenwitz, 53 Misc. 3d 428 (2016)

trial courts

What the court had to decide

Whether Real Property Law § 223-b provides a defense in a nonpayment proceeding when the landlord's retaliation deprived the tenant of a Section 8 subsidy.

What it held

Real Property Law § 223-b is not a complete defense in nonpayment proceedings, but where the landlord's retaliation deprived the tenant of a Section 8 subsidy, it affords at least an offset against rent owed.

In the court's words
This court holds that Real Property Law § 223-b is not a complete defense in nonpayment proceedings, but in circumstances where a landlord’s retaliation deprived the tenant of his Section 8 subsidy, Real Property Law § 223-b affords at least an offset against rent owed in a nonpayment action.

Lazy Aches Park, LLC v. Ferretti, 118 A.D.3d 1406 (2014)

Appellate Division

What the court had to decide

Does Real Property Law § 223-b apply to a mobile home owned outright and placed on a lot rented for seasonal use and occupancy?

What it held

The court held that Real Property Law § 223-b does not apply because a mobile home, owned outright and placed on a lot rented for seasonal use and occupancy, is not a 'rental residential premises' within the meaning of the statute.

In the court's words
Neither affirmative defense of retaliatory eviction contained in Real Property Law §§ 223-b or 233 (n) applies to the property at issue.

Baer v. Huggins, 41 Misc. 3d 605 (2013)

trial courts

What the court had to decide

Whether the landlord's holdover proceeding was retaliatory under RPP § 223-B.

What it held

The court found that the landlord served the notice to quit in retaliation for the tenant's protected action and would not have otherwise commenced the case, thus dismissing the petition.

In the court's words
The court concludes that by electing instead to commence a holdover proceeding, Mr. Barr sought to retaliate against Mr. Huggins for withholding rent, and would not otherwise have commenced this case.

MH Residential 1, LLC v. Barrett, 41 Misc. 3d 24 (2013)

trial courts

What the court had to decide

Whether tenants at sufferance have standing to assert a retaliatory eviction defense under Real Property Law § 223-b.

What it held

The court held that tenants at sufferance may invoke the retaliatory eviction statute, as its plain language prohibits a landlord from refusing to continue a tenancy or renew a lease in retaliation for tenant conduct, including participation in a tenant's organization.

In the court's words
we do not construe the Appellate Division holding in this case’s earlier incarnation so broadly as to preclude appellants from invoking the retaliatory eviction statute, which by its terms prohibits a landlord from “refusing] to continue a tenancy of the tenant or, upon expiration of the tenant’s lease, to renew the lease or offer a new lease” (Real Property Law § 223-b [2]) in retaliation for certain species of tenant conduct, including a “tenant’s participation in the activities of a tenant’s organization” (§ 223-b [1] [c]).

339-347 E. 12th St. LLC v. Ling, 35 Misc. 3d 30 (2012)

trial courts

What the court had to decide

Whether the tenant's proof of landlord retaliation under Real Property Law § 223-b was sufficient to warrant summary dismissal of the holdover proceeding.

What it held

The court held that the proceeding was not susceptible to summary dismissal because material triable issues of fact existed regarding whether the landlord commenced the proceeding in retaliation for the tenant's protected actions and whether the landlord would have otherwise commenced the proceeding.

In the court's words
This holdover summary proceeding, ostensibly based upon the expiration of the residential tenant’s most recent unregulated lease agreement, is not susceptible to summary dismissal.

Source: Caselaw Access Project, CC0 1.0 Universal (public domain dedication).

Related sections

N.Y. Real Property Law § 235-b Warranty of Habitability: N.Y. Real Property Law § 235-b N.Y. Real Property Law § 227-f No Housing Court Rejection: N.Y. Real Property Law § 227-f N.Y. Real Property Law § 215 RPL § 215: no removal without good cause N.Y. Real Property Law § 216 Good cause eviction grounds: N.Y. Real Property Law § 216 N.Y. Real Property Law § 226-c Five percent rent notice: N.Y. Real Property Law § 226-c N.Y. Real Property Law § 235 Cutting Heat Is a Violation: N.Y. Real Property Law § 235

That's the law. Now let's settle your problem.

Say what is happening. A neutral mediator hears your side and the other party's, and walks you both to a written agreement. In the advanced settings you can ask for the decision to be reasoned on the New York Consolidated Laws.

This is with

Or open a session directly and invite the other party.

We copy this text from the official publisher and re-check it against that source on every page load, but we cannot guarantee it is complete, current or free of error, and we accept no liability for any reliance on it. An amendment can take effect before a consolidation catches up. The publisher's own copy is linked below; where the two differ, it is the official one that counts.

This page reproduces the text of N.Y. Real Property Law § 223-b in force at the date shown and explains it in general terms. It is not legal advice and takes no account of the circumstances of your case, which can change the answer completely. For a live dispute, for limitation periods, and before taking any step in court, consult a qualified lawyer in New York.

← All New York law pages