(631)-271-3737
(718)-751-0226
(516)-307-0262
(347)-508-9316
(631)-223-4502On Monday morning, April 22, 2024, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed a portion of the New York State Fiscal Year 2025 (“FY2025”) budget that will change the way “tenants” are defined under New York State law. The definition updates New York State Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (“RPAPL”) Section 711 to read that “a tenant shall not include a squatter,” and further defines a squatter as “a person who enters or intrudes upon real property without the permission of the person entitled to possession, and continues to occupy the property without title, right or permission of the owner or owner’s agent or a person entitled to possession.”
The language was derived from legislation introduced by New York State Senator John Liu and New York State Assembly Member Ron Kim (Senate Bill S5979) following recent increased reports of squatters taking over private property. The text of the bill read as follows:
“Section 711 of the real property actions and proceedings law is amended to clarify the definition of tenant to exclude squatters. For the purposes of this article, a tenant shall not include a person who enters onto a property with the intent of squatting on the property or otherwise settles on land or occupies property without title, right, permission of the rightful owner or payment of rent. Further adds occupying a building or real property without title, right, permission of the rightful owner, and with the intent of squatting in such building or real property, to the definition of criminal trespass in the third degree.
JUSTIFICATION:
Under New York State law, squatters are classified as tenants and receive temporary rights as such after living in a property for a period of 30 days. To reclaim property from a squatter after thirty days, an owner must be able to prove a right to the property and proceed with legal eviction proceedings The special proceeding may give the owner an order that a sheriff can then enforce to remove the squatter. The owner may not remove the tenant himself. As a byproduct of the strained housing market, squatters are infiltrating neighborhoods entering empty properties and abusing the loophole in New York State law. This legislation will removethe protection granted under current law and exclude squatters from the definition of tenant.”
The bill was passed over the April 20-21, 2024, weekend by both the State Assembly and the State Senate. It is a small change that lawmakers say will have a big impact. Specifically, lawmakers say this change will make it easier for police to intervene in squatting cases instead of owners having to take the squatters to housing court, which can be both expensive and time consuming. The new language establishes that squatters are not tenants and, therefore, are not subject to tenants’ rights or protections after 30 days.
Section 711 previously read that “A tenant shall include an occupant of one or more rooms in a rooming house or a resident, not including a transient occupant, of one or more rooms in a hotel who has been in possession for thirty [30] consecutive days or longer; he [or she] shall not be removed from possession except in a special proceeding” (emphasis added). The new law extends the time period for tenancy rights to kick-in from 30 days to 45 consecutive days of possession and additionally adds squatting to the definition of “criminal trespass in the third degree”.
State Senator John Liu (16th District, Queens), a co-author of the bill, stated, “It was important that we acted with urgency to send a strong message to squatters who take over private homes that they are not welcome in our community. Scam artists who intrude on others’ homes should not have rights as tenants in state housing law, and this inclusion in the budget codifies that in simple, straightforward language. Defining squatter is an important step forward, and we will continue examining even stronger measures to protect homeowners without inadvertently putting renters at risk.”
State Assembly Member Ron Kim (40th District, Queens), the other co-author of the bill, stated, “Our state needed stronger protections for law abiding property owners who are being victimized by squatters. Our new law defines these terms more precisely. Any occupant who unlawfully resides in a property owner’s home will be more easily removed. I want to thank colleagues in the legislature for moving expeditiously on this new law”
State Assembly Member Ed Braunstein (26th District, Queens) stated, “New York State homeowners have been put on edge by the recent reports of people returning to their properties and finding squatters, only to discover that the squatters cannot be removed without a lengthy and costly eviction proceeding. Trespassing individuals in these situations are abusing a law meant to protect lawful tenants and they absolutely should not be afforded the same rights and protections. I was proud to co-sponsor this bill, which sought to close this loophole and protect New York homeowners from these unlawful opportunists. I am pleased that this clarifying language was included in this year’s state budget.”
State Assembly Member Nily Rozic (25th District, Queens) stated, “Today signifies an important step forward as we include language defining ‘squatters’ in the state budget. This measure will help safeguard property rights and ensure the well-being of our communities. Thank you to my colleagues for their collective efforts to address squatting issues across New York.”
State Senator Leroy Comrie (14th District, Queens) stated, “The state legislature took a hard stance against squatters who twist existing loopholes through acts that would, by any other circumstance, constitute theft. This change to the law is desperately needed, amongst our Queens residents, especially our seniors and homeowners, who have been living in fear and confusion as to how the law could possibly allow for such abuses. I am proud to stand with my colleagues to resolve this matter and hope for this bill’s swift passage.”
State Assembly Member Grace Lee (65th District, Manhattan) stated, “In this year’s budget, we are making it clear that if you are illegally occupying someone’s property, you are a squatter, not a tenant. Squatters do not have the same rights and protections as lawful tenants and by clarifying this distinction, we can better protect small landlords in our communities. I was proud to be a prime co-sponsor for this bill and to fight with my colleagues to get it passed in this year’s budget.”
Locally, State Assemblyman Jake Blumencranz (15th District, Oyster Bay), who introduced the companion Assembly Bill 6894, stated, “I think anyone who’s paying attention sees this is becoming an increasing issue. People, especially migrant groups or other groups who are looking to use our laws against us, will use this loophole to hurt law-abiding citizens.”
Multiple news outlets, including ABC News and the New York Post, have been reporting on numerous recent cases of accused squatters – including one that was criminally charged last weekend in Queens County. After the reports, at least four lawmakers filed anti-squatting legislation, which led to a last-minute compromise over the April 20-21 weekend.
Over the past month, ABC News ran several stories on squatters, including how a homeowner in Flushing, Queens was arrested for changing the locks on her own home; how a Douglaston, Queens family has been unable to move into their own home because the former caretaker refuses to leave; and how the FDNY said a home in Brooklyn went up in flames as the result of squatters. One particular case turned deadly when a pair of teen squatters allegedly killed property owner Nadia Vitels after she showed up at the East 31st Street apartment owned by her late mother on March 12, 2024. Additionally, delays in the demolition and construction of a center for young adults with special needs in Queens were attributed to a squatter occupying a home that used to be on the property. The building’s owner said it took six months and $100,000 in legal fees to reclaim her family’s rightful property.
New York City Mayor Eric Adams spoke out in favor of the legislation to help protect homeowners from squatters. “There was a reason squatter laws were put in place and I think people were starting to exploit what some of those reasons are,” Mayor Adams said. “I find far too often we seem to ignore homeowners, middle class working class New Yorkers, so we’re going to look at this law and see how we can partner with the city council to resolve this issue.” Adams said he met with the City Council’s Common Sense Caucus about protecting homeowners and said squatting in particular is a threat to minority communities. “If we lose small property owners,” the Mayor said, “big developers are going to come in, we’re going to lose the financial base of black and brown immigrant communities.”
Real estate attorney Josh Price of The Price Law Firm, LLC, said, “This is happening far more now than in the past. Squatters have become far more sophisticated than before. They set up elaborate schemes, fake documents and investigate the homes before breaking in.” Manhattan real estate lawyer Alan Goldberg of Goldberg & Lindenberg, P.C., said he’s seen a 10-to-20% bump in squatter cases over the past two years, attributing it to the migrant crisis, post-pandemic homelessness and media coverage. “The irony is the more publicity it gets the more people think about it,” Goldberg said. “I think it’s got media attention and also the migrant crisis, more people homeless,” he said. “The media, by telling people about squatters, is kind of encouraging it.”
Newsweek has reported that a separate bill which is still in committee and has not been voted on yet (Senate Bill 8867) includes a proposal which would allow police to immediately evict suspected squatters from residential properties based solely on a homeowner’s sworn complaint and would not require any court action. However, New York State Senator Mario Mattera’s office said, “to balance the aggressive stance,” the new proposal includes substantial civil protections for individuals wrongfully removed, including potential triple damages, restoration of possession, and attorney fees for the aggrieved party. “While protections are necessary against malicious actions, it’s crucial that we decisively protect our legal homeowners who have suffered due to the current broken system. We are committed to reversing the trend that favors squatters and trespassers, thereby reinstating fundamental rights to our state’s homeowners,” Senator Mattera said in the news release. Senator Mattera also told Newsweek that local Assemblyman Steve Stern (10th District, Suffolk County) is working closely with him on the proposal.
The definition of a “squatter” is important because squatters don’t have legal rights or possessory interests. Lengthening the time period for a squatter to obtain a possessory interest from 30 to 45 days (a 50% increase) is helpful to both homeowners and law enforcement. “It is clear that defendants herein acted within their rights in evicting plaintiffs as plaintiffs were illegal occupants, or squatters, and thus had no property interest in the premises or in its continued occupancy.” Morillo v. City of New York, 178 A.D.2d 7, 13, 582 N.Y.S.2d 387, lv. denied, 80 N.Y.2d 752, 587 N.Y.S.2d 904, 600 N.E.2d 631. “Plaintiffs’ contention that RPAPL 713 requires defendants to utilize statutory remedies, rather than self-help, in regaining possession of the premises is erroneous. In P & A Brothers v. City of New York Dept. of Parks & Recreation, 184 A.D.2d 267, 585 N.Y.S.2d 335, we held that: While it is true that tenants as defined in RPAPL 711 may be evicted only through lawful procedure, others, such as licensees and squatters, who are covered by RPAPL 713 are not so protected…. RPAPL 713 merely permits a special proceeding as an additional means of effectuating the removal of nontenants, but it does not replace an owner’s common-law right to oust an interloper without legal process…. (emphasis added). Defendants, therefore, acted within their statutory rights in ordering the police to remove the plaintiffs.” Paulino v. Wright, 210 AD2d 171, 620 NYS 2d 363 (1st Dept. 1994).
