New York, NY – Judge Upholds City Ban on Section 8 Rent Bias

New York, NY – A New York City law that makes it illegal for landlords to discriminate against tenants who receive government subsidies has passed its first major legal test, after a justice in Manhattan upheld a broad interpretation of the law.

The law prohibits landlords from discriminating against tenants based on their use of federal rent subsidies known as Section 8 vouchers, or any other form of local, state or federal government assistance.

Tenants and housing advocates had complained that as once-struggling neighborhoods had gentrified, many property owners were refusing to accept the vouchers, as a way to force low-income renters out of their buildings or keep them out.

Landlords said their reluctance to take the vouchers had nothing to do with race or income, but stemmed from the payment delays and other bureaucratic problems with the way the city administers the federal Section 8 program.

Tenants who receive the Section 8 subsidies pay about 30 percent of their income toward rent, and the vouchers cover the rest.

The Legal Aid Society sued about 30 landlords, alleging that they violated the law by turning away about 30 voucher holders.
All the tenants in the lawsuit were current tenants of the landlords who had received their vouchers during their tenancy and had hoped to use them to pay a large portion of their rent.

Lawyers for the landlords argued that the law as written did not apply to current tenants, but only to new tenants seeking apartments. The law does not specifically mention either existing or new tenants, though the preamble to the law, which is technically not part of the statute, refers to “current tenants.”

The law states that “to discriminate against any person” because of a lawful source of income in the sale, rental or lease of housing accommodations is illegal.

The justice, Emily Jane Goodman of State Supreme Court, ruled that the law applied to both existing and prospective tenants. Justice Goodman called the argument by lawyers for the landlords a “strained interpretation” that was inconsistent with the purpose of the law.

The justice’s ruling was praised by tenant advocates and City Council members who had pushed for passage of the law, known as Local Law 10.
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg opposed the bill, stating in part that it was the job of the government to make its program more attractive to private landlords, instead of forcing them to participate – but the Council overrode his veto to pass it into law.

“The message today should be loud and clear: Income discrimination when renting an apartment is unlawful and will not be allowed to continue,” Council Speaker Christine C. Quinn said in a statement.

The city’s largest landlord group, the Rent Stabilization Association, shared the view that the law did not apply to existing tenants. Mitchell Posilkin, the group’s general counsel, said landlords in this case and similar ones were prepared to renew the leases of the tenants, but wanted simply to avoid taking part in the Section 8 program.

“We disagree with Judge Goodman’s decision,” Mr. Posilkin said. “We believe that she was determined to interpret this law in a way that benefited the tenant.”

The city’s Commission on Human Rights, which is in charge of enforcing the law, said it had received 128 complaints of income discrimination. Of those, 45 have been settled, and the landlord has agreed to accept the voucher, said Cliff Mulqueen, the commission’s deputy commissioner and general counsel. The rest either are pending, have been dismissed or are at various stages of the administrative hearing process.

The landlords in the lawsuit now have to accept the tenants’ vouchers. One of the tenants, Yevgeniya Timkovsky, 77, who lives in Washington Heights, said she would now be able to use a voucher she received in 2007 that will reduce her rent to $311 from $675. She and her husband survive on about $1,000 a month in Supplemental Security Income.

“Today I feel on seventh heaven,” Mrs. Timkovsky said.