N.Y. Real Property Law § 227-f

No Housing Court Rejection: N.Y. Real Property Law § 227-f

N.Y. landlords cannot refuse to rent based on past or pending housing court cases. Violators face civil penalties from five hundred to one thousand dollars.

Official text N.Y. Real Property Law § 227-f — New York

§ 227-f. Denial on the basis of involvement in prior disputes prohibited. 1. No landlord of a residential premises shall refuse to rent or offer a lease to a potential tenant on the basis that the potential tenant was involved in a past or pending landlord-tenant action or summary proceeding under article seven of the real property actions and proceedings law. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that a person is in violation of this section if it is established that the person requested information from a tenant screening bureau relating to a potential tenant or otherwise inspected court records relating to a potential tenant and the person subsequently refuses to rent or offer a lease to the potential tenant.

  • 2. Whenever the attorney general shall believe from evidence satisfactory to him or her that any person, firm, corporation or association or agent or employee thereof has violated subdivision one of this section, he or she may bring an action or special proceeding in the supreme court for a judgment enjoining the continuance of such violation and for a civil penalty of not less than five hundred dollars, but not more than one thousand dollars for each violation.

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

Subdivision 1 states a flat prohibition: no landlord of residential premises shall refuse to rent or offer a lease to a potential tenant on the basis that the applicant was involved in a past or pending landlord-tenant action or summary proceeding under article 7 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law. "Involved in" is not qualified - the section does not distinguish between the tenant who was sued and the tenant who sued, or between a case won and a case lost.

The second sentence is what makes the prohibition operate, because a refusal rarely comes with its reason attached. A rebuttable presumption of violation arises if it is established that the person requested information from a tenant screening bureau about the applicant, or otherwise inspected court records relating to the applicant, and then refused to rent. Looking at the list and then saying no shifts the burden of explanation onto the landlord.

Enforcement is public rather than private in the text. Subdivision 2 empowers the Attorney General, on satisfactory evidence, to bring an action or special proceeding in the Supreme Court to enjoin the violation and to seek a civil penalty of not less than five hundred and not more than one thousand dollars for each violation. The section does not, in its own words, create a private action for the rejected applicant or say what an applicant recovers.

When it applies

  • An application is refused after the landlord runs a tenant screening report showing an old non-payment case.
  • A broker says the building does not accept applicants who appear in housing court records.
  • A tenant who once sued a landlord over conditions cannot get an apartment anywhere.
  • A renewal is refused after the landlord discovers a pending proceeding with a different landlord.
  • An applicant is asked to explain a case that was dismissed years ago and then rejected.

What this section does not say

  • It does not stop a landlord from screening. Credit and background checks are permitted; § 238-a caps what may be charged for them.
  • It does not oblige a landlord to rent to anyone. Other lawful reasons for refusal are untouched by this section.
  • It does not by its terms give the rejected applicant damages. Subdivision 2 puts enforcement in the hands of the Attorney General.
  • It is not the fair housing law. Discrimination on protected characteristics is covered by the Human Rights Law and federal law, which are separate.
  • The presumption is rebuttable - it requires the landlord to explain, and does not itself establish a violation.

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

Every application someone makes is refused as soon as the agent runs a screening report showing a non-payment case from years ago that was dismissed.

How the wording applies

Refusing to rent on the basis that an applicant was involved in a past or pending landlord-tenant action is prohibited, and "involved in" is unqualified - the section does not separate a case won from a case lost, or the tenant who sued from the one who was sued. A rebuttable presumption of violation arises where it is established that the landlord requested information from a tenant screening bureau or otherwise inspected court records and then refused. So it turns on establishing that the report was pulled before the refusal.

How the parties settled it

The agent agrees to reconsider on income and references alone and to stop asking about housing court history at viewings, and the applicant supplies two landlord references instead.

Illustrative example

A broker tells an applicant plainly that the building does not take anyone who appears in housing court records, whatever the outcome of the case was.

How the wording applies

The prohibition covers refusing to rent or to offer a lease on that basis, and a stated policy removes the usual difficulty, which is that a refusal rarely arrives with its reason attached. Enforcement, though, is public in the section's own words: subdivision 2 puts it with the Attorney General, with a civil penalty of between five hundred and one thousand dollars for each violation, and the section does not say what a rejected applicant recovers.

How the parties settled it

The managing agent withdraws the policy in writing and offers the applicant the next comparable vacancy, and the applicant agrees to the ordinary credit and reference checks.

Illustrative example

Someone who once brought a case against a former landlord over conditions finds that applications stall the moment that history surfaces, though nobody says so in writing.

How the wording applies

The words reach an applicant involved in a past or pending landlord-tenant action, which includes the applicant who brought it. What the section does not do is oblige anyone to rent - other lawful reasons for refusal are untouched, and it is § 238-a rather than this section that limits what may be charged for the screening itself.

How the parties settled it

The landlord agrees to give a written reason for any refusal within five days, and the applicant accepts that a documented reason unconnected to the court record closes the matter.

Related sections

N.Y. Real Property Law § 223-b No Retaliatory Eviction: N.Y. Real Property Law § 223-b N.Y. Real Property Law § 238-a Twenty Dollar Fee Cap: N.Y. Real Property Law § 238-a N.Y. Real Property Law § 226-c Five percent rent notice: N.Y. Real Property Law § 226-c

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 § 227-f 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