N.Y. Real Property Law § 235

Cutting Heat Is a Violation: N.Y. Real Property Law § 235

N.Y. Real Property Law § 235 makes it a violation for a landlord or agent to wilfully fail to supply heat, water, light, or power, or disturb quiet enjoyment.

Official text N.Y. Real Property Law § 235 — New York

§ 235. Wilful violations. 1. Any lessor, agent, manager, superintendent or janitor of any building, or part thereof, the lease or rental agreement whereof by its terms, expressed or implied, requires the furnishing of hot or cold water, heat, light, power, elevator service, telephone service or any other service or facility to any occupant of said building, who wilfully or intentionally fails to furnish such water, heat, light, power, elevator service, telephone service or other service or facility at any time when the same are necessary to the proper or customary use of such building, or part thereof, or any lessor, agent, manager, superintendent or janitor who wilfully and intentionally interferes with the quiet enjoyment of the leased premises by such occupant, is guilty of a violation.

  • 2. Any lessor, agent, manager, superintendent or janitor of any building, or part therof, who wilfully or intentionally acts to prevent or obstruct the delivery of fuel oil ordered in compliance with either section three hundred two-c of the multiple dwelling law or section three hunded five-c of the multiple residence law or the refiring of an oil burner after such a delivery shall be guilty of a 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

Section 235 is about intent, not about failure. It applies where the lease requires the furnishing of hot or cold water, heat, light, power, elevator service, telephone service "or any other service or facility", and the landlord - or the agent, manager, superintendent or janitor - willfully or intentionally fails to furnish it at a time when it is necessary to the proper or customary use of the building. A boiler that broke is not this section; a boiler that was switched off is.

The second half of subdivision 1 is broader than the utility list and is often the part that matters: any of those same people who "willfully and intentionally interferes with the quiet enjoyment of the leased premises" by an occupant is guilty of a violation. That language reaches conduct with no utility in it at all - changing the locks, removing a door, cutting off access, staging construction to make the apartment unusable.

Note what the consequence is. The section says the person "is guilty of a violation" - it creates an offense, with the penalties the Penal Law attaches to a violation, and it names the individual superintendent or manager as well as the owner. It is not written as a compensation provision, and it does not say what the tenant gets. Subdivision 2 adds a second offense for willfully obstructing the delivery of fuel oil ordered under the Multiple Dwelling Law or Multiple Residence Law, or the refiring of the burner afterwards.

When it applies

  • The landlord changes the locks while the tenant is out.
  • Heat or hot water is switched off deliberately during a dispute over rent or over a renewal.
  • The electricity to an apartment is disconnected at the meter to make the tenant leave.
  • A superintendent removes the apartment door, the boiler controls or the elevator from service to pressure an occupant.
  • Fuel oil ordered for a building is turned away at the door.

What this section does not say

  • It does not cover breakdowns. The words are "willfully or intentionally"; a service that failed because equipment broke or a supplier was late is a habitability question under § 235-b, not a § 235 violation.
  • It does not say what money a tenant recovers. The section declares an offense. It sets no damages, no multiplier and no fine amount of its own.
  • It is not the eviction procedure. A landlord who wants possession must go to court under the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law; § 235 describes what is unlawful, not what is lawful instead.
  • "Quiet enjoyment" here means interference with the tenant's use and possession by the landlord's side. It is not a noise rule and does not reach what other tenants or neighbors do.

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 behind on rent comes home to find the locks changed and the power off. The landlord says the arrears must be settled before anyone is let back in.

How the wording applies

The section reaches the landlord, agent, manager, superintendent or janitor who willfully or intentionally fails to furnish a service the lease requires, and separately any of those people who willfully and intentionally interferes with the quiet enjoyment of the leased premises - which is where changing the locks sits. What it produces is an offense: the person is guilty of a violation. It says nothing about what the tenant recovers, so the arrears remain a separate question with their own route.

How the parties settled it

The locks are restored the same day and the power reconnected, and the parties agree a written payment plan for the arrears with a date each month, neither treating the other's step as cancelling it.

Illustrative example

The heat goes off in January during a row about the renewal. The tenant is certain it was switched off deliberately; the landlord produces an engineer's invoice for a failed circulating pump.

How the wording applies

The words are "willfully or intentionally". A service that stopped because equipment broke or a supplier was late is a habitability question under § 235-b, not a violation of this section. So it turns on intent, which is exactly what the invoice and the timing of the outage speak to.

How the parties settled it

The heat is restored and a credit given for the days without it, and both agree that any future outage is reported to each of them by the engineer directly, which takes the argument about cause off the table.

Illustrative example

A superintendent removes an apartment door "for repair" and leaves it off for a fortnight while a renewal dispute runs. The tenant also wants the section used against a neighbor who plays music all night.

How the wording applies

The quiet-enjoyment limb names the superintendent and manager as well as the owner, so the person who removed the door is within it - but only where the act was willful and intentional. It does not reach what other tenants or neighbors do: the phrase concerns interference by the landlord's side with the tenant's use and possession, and it is not a noise rule.

How the parties settled it

The door is rehung within forty-eight hours and written notice is given before any further work inside the apartment, while the neighbor question is taken up separately with the managing agent.

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.

Rosquist v. Richmond Senior Services, Inc., 41 Misc. 3d 14 (2013)

trial courts

What the court had to decide

Does the Housing Part of the New York City Civil Court have jurisdiction to issue an injunction for a violation of Real Property Law § 235 when the services in question are not included in state laws for the establishment and maintenance of housing standards?

What it held

The Housing Part lacks jurisdiction to issue injunctions for failure to provide services that are not included in state laws for establishment and maintenance of housing standards, which includes the services in question on this appeal, and the tenant failed to demonstrate a lease requiring those services.

In the court's words
Consequently, the Housing Part lacks jurisdiction to issue injunctions, pursuant to CCA 110 (a) (4), for failure to provide those services, which would include the services in question on this appeal.

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

The same problem elsewhere

The other legal systems in this collection answer the same everyday problem with their own provisions.

The comparison and these one-line summaries are in English.

Locked out: the landlord changed the locks and cut the power, in 7 jurisdictions

Read the full comparison →

Related sections

N.Y. Real Property Law § 235-a Deduct Utility From Rent: N.Y. Real Property Law § 235-a N.Y. Real Property Law § 235-b Warranty of Habitability: N.Y. Real Property Law § 235-b N.Y. Real Property Law § 235-d Loft Tenant Harassment: N.Y. Real Property Law § 235-d N.Y. Real Property Law § 223-b No Retaliatory Eviction: N.Y. Real Property Law § 223-b N.Y. Real Property Law § 218 RPL § 218: a tenant cannot sign away good cause eviction protection

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 § 235 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