N.Y. Real Property Law § 227

Stop rent if untenantable: N.Y. Real Property Law § 227

Under RPL § 227, if a building is destroyed or untenantable without tenant fault, the tenant may surrender possession and stop paying future rent.

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

§ 227. When tenant may surrender premises. Where any building, which is leased or occupied, is destroyed or so injured by the elements, or any other cause as to be untenantable, and unfit for occupancy, and no express agreement to the contrary has been made in writing, the lessee or occupant may, if the destruction or injury occurred without his or her fault or neglect, quit and surrender possession of the leasehold premises, and of the land so leased or occupied; and he or she is not liable to pay to the lessor or owner, rent for the time subsequent to the surrender. Any rent paid in advance or which may have accrued by the terms of a lease or any other hiring shall be adjusted to the date of such surrender.

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

This is the rule for the building that is no longer there, or no longer usable. Where a leased or occupied building "is destroyed or so injured by the elements, or any other cause as to be untenantable, and unfit for occupancy", the tenant may quit and surrender possession - of the premises and of the land - and is not liable for rent for the time after the surrender. Rent paid in advance, or accrued under the lease, is adjusted to the date of surrender.

There are two conditions written into the sentence, and both matter. The first is that the destruction or injury occurred "without his or her fault or neglect": a tenant whose own conduct made the place unfit cannot use this section to walk away. The second is that no express agreement to the contrary has been made in writing. Section 227 is a default rule, and a lease can displace it - many commercial leases do exactly that, with detailed casualty and rent-abatement provisions that take the place of this section.

The section gives a right to leave, not a right to stay and pay less. Its whole operation is surrender: possession goes back, and liability for future rent stops. It does not create an abatement for a tenant who remains in a damaged building, and it does not address what the landlord must rebuild or when. The word doing the heavy lifting is "untenantable" - the statute gives no test for it, and whether a fire, a flood or a collapse crossed that line is a question of fact about the state of the building.

When it applies

  • A fire leaves the apartment uninhabitable and the landlord still demands rent for the remainder of the term.
  • A storm or flood makes the building unfit and the tenant wants to hand back the keys and stop paying.
  • A structural failure or a vacate order empties the building mid-lease.
  • A commercial lease is silent on casualty and the premises are destroyed.
  • The parties disagree over how much of the advance rent and deposit should be adjusted to the date of surrender.

What this section does not say

  • It does not give a rent reduction to a tenant who stays. The section operates by surrender; remaining in occupation and paying less is a different argument, usually under § 235-b.
  • It can be written out of the lease. The section applies only where "no express agreement to the contrary has been made in writing", so a casualty clause in the lease governs instead.
  • It does not apply where the tenant is at fault. Destruction caused by the tenant's own fault or neglect is expressly outside it.
  • It does not oblige the landlord to rebuild, to rehouse the tenant or to compensate for lost belongings. It addresses only possession and rent going forward.
  • It does not define "untenantable". Damage that is serious but leaves the premises usable is not covered by these words.

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 fire leaves an apartment unlivable. The tenant moves out the same week, and the landlord bills for the eight months left on the lease.

How the wording applies

Where a building is destroyed or so injured by the elements or any other cause as to be untenantable and unfit for occupancy, and this happened without the tenant's fault or neglect, the tenant may quit and surrender and is not liable for rent for the time after the surrender. Two conditions sit in that sentence, and both decide cases: fault, and whether an express agreement to the contrary was made in writing.

How the parties settled it

They agree the tenancy ended on the day the keys came back, apportion the advance rent to that date, and the deposit is returned in full.

Illustrative example

A burst pipe wrecks one bedroom and the kitchen of a three-bedroom apartment. The tenant carries on living in the rest of it and wants to pay less until the repairs are finished.

How the wording applies

The section gives a right to leave, not a right to stay and pay less: its entire operation is surrender, with possession going back and liability for future rent stopping. A tenant who remains in a damaged home is making a different argument, usually under § 235-b. And the word doing the heavy lifting here, "untenantable", is given no test by the statute at all.

How the parties settled it

They agree a reduced rent while the two rooms are out of use, a completion date for the work, and that the reduction ends when the rooms are handed back.

Illustrative example

A small workshop is destroyed in a storm. The tenant takes it that the lease is over; the landlord points to a detailed casualty and abatement clause in the document.

How the wording applies

The section applies only where no express agreement to the contrary has been made in writing, so a casualty clause governs in its place. What decides this is the clause: § 227 is a fallback rule, and commercial leases very often displace it deliberately.

How the parties settled it

They follow the lease's own abatement mechanism through the rebuilding period and add a longstop date after which either of them may end the lease, which the clause had not provided for.

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.

Dance Magic, Inc. v. Pike Realty, Inc., 85 A.D.3d 1083 (2011)

Appellate Division

What the court had to decide

Whether a commercial tenant who has expressly waived its rights under Real Property Law § 227 can still claim constructive eviction.

What it held

A commercial tenant who has waived its rights under Real Property Law § 227 cannot claim constructive eviction and is limited to the remedies set forth in the lease.

In the court's words
Where a commercial tenant has waived its rights under Real Property Law § 227, the tenant may not claim constructive eviction, but is limited to the remedies set forth in the lease (see Hudson Towers Hous. Co., Inc. v VIP Yacht Cruises, Inc., 63 AD3d at 413; RVC Assoc. v Rockville Anesthesia Group, 267 AD2d at 371; Schwartz, Karlan & Gutstein v 271 Venture, 172 AD2d at 226).

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-e Landlord must re-rent: N.Y. Real Property Law § 227-e N.Y. Real Property Law § 227-a RPL § 227-a: ending a lease to enter care or move in with family, at 62 or with a disability N.Y. Real Property Law § 339-cc RPL § 339-cc: rebuilding a damaged condominium, and the three-quarters rule

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 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