Whether or not it’s refining what you are promoting mannequin, mastering new applied sciences, or discovering methods to capitalize on the subsequent market surge, Inman Join New York will put together you to take daring steps ahead. The Subsequent Chapter is about to start. Be a part of it. Be part of us and 1000’s of actual property leaders Jan. 22-24, 2025.
Three days after New York Metropolis’s Equity in Condominium Rental Bills (FARE) Act grew to become regulation with out the signature of Mayor Eric Adams, the Actual Property Board of New York (REBNY) has filed a lawsuit to cease the invoice’s June 2025 enforcement.
The New York State Affiliation of Realtors, Bohemia Actual Property Group, Bond New York Actual Property Corp, REAL New York, Stage Group, 4 Corners Realty, 21 West 74 Corp and the 8 West 119th Road housing improvement fund firms have joined the lawsuit as co-plaintiffs, in response to court docket paperwork.
The lawsuit claims the FARE Act, which requires rental property house owners to cowl dealer charges once they enlist a dealer to assist them lease a unit, is “constitutionally defective” and preempted by New York state legal guidelines that defend business free speech and already regulate compensation for actual property brokers and salespeople.
The lawsuit additionally claims the FARE Act violates the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Structure since brokers and landlords can’t execute present itemizing agreements that require brokers to barter and obtain compensation from tenants.
Carl Hum | Credit score: REBNY
“The FARE Act is bad policy and bad law,” REBNY Common Counsel Carl Hum mentioned in an emailed assertion. “This legislation will not only raise rents and make it harder for tenants to find housing, but it also infringes upon constitutional guarantees of free speech and contract rights, as well as New York State law. We look forward to our day in court.”
The lawsuit claims the FARE Act will disrupt New York Metropolis’s rental market, which has relied on a two-tier system of unique and open listings.
With an unique itemizing, a landlord hires a dealer to market and lease their unit. The owner can choose to compensate the dealer, which is marketed to renters as a “no-fee” itemizing, or the owner can direct the dealer to barter and obtain compensation from the tenant.
With an open itemizing, landlords ship their listings to brokers for promoting functions solely. They don’t require the owner and dealer to signal an unique itemizing settlement, because the dealer’s solely accountability is to distribute the itemizing on their web site or a third-party web site like StreetEasy. renters are then capable of contact the dealer, view the unit, and negotiate compensation in the event that they resolve to maneuver ahead with a lease settlement.
The swimsuit goes on to say roughly half of New York Metropolis’s rental stock is already no-fee; nonetheless, it doesn’t imply that no-fee residences are robotically cheaper than tenant-fee listings.
“The same apartment may be advertised as a ‘fee’ or ‘no-fee’ apartment. Indeed, a ‘fee’ apartment (where the tenant pays) may list for $2,700 per month, while the same apartment advertised as ‘no fee’ to the tenant may list for $3,000 per month,” the court docket paperwork learn. “The higher base rent means that over the course of the tenancy, the tenant will likely pay more than if they just paid the initial brokerage fee at the time they enter into the lease for the apartment.”
“The FARE Act will target the tenant pays or fee apartments, which make up the other half of the rental market,” it added. “Tenant pays apartments are more likely to be owned by small landlords and have lower rents. The current system evolved to accommodate landlords’ and tenants’ varying needs.”
Chi Ossé | Credit score: X
New York Metropolis Councilmember Chi Ossé, who launched the invoice, mentioned REBNY’s lawsuit is a last-ditch try and reverse the Council’s determination (they handed FARE with a vote of 42 to eight) and the needs of New Yorkers who’ve lengthy complained about exorbitant housing prices.
“This lawsuit is a last desperate attempt by the real estate lobby to undermine the voices of city residents and maintain an irrational practice that nearly every other big city in the country does not allow,” Ossé advised Brick Underground on Tuesday.
REBNY’s lawsuit is the newest chapter in an almost two-year battle over FARE. Ossé initially launched FARE in 2023 however did not get sufficient legislative help to garner a listening to. Nevertheless, when Ossé reintroduced the invoice in February, he’d gained 31 co-sponsors and a groundswell of help from tenants and housing advocates who mentioned the FARE Act was crucial to enhance affordability.
In Inman’s June deep-dive into FARE, NYC rents had reached a near-record median of $3,600. A renter renting a median-priced unit in June would’ve paid $7,200 upfront for his or her first month’s lease and a safety deposit. In the event that they rented a unit that got here with a dealer payment, they might’ve been anticipated to pay 10 to fifteen p.c of the annual rental prices or an quantity equal to 1 month’s lease — simply pushing their upfront prices into 5 figures.
“A party that purchases or contracts a good or service should be responsible for the cost,” Ossé, who represents Brooklyn, advised The Gothamist in June. “This is the case in every other transaction across our vast economy and should be true for New York City rentals as well. The FARE Act has the potential to alleviate prohibitive upfront costs for workers and growing families searching for a new home.”
“If you want a broker, great; hire them. And if you don’t want one, my bill says you don’t have to pay,” he added.
REBNY led a 1,500-person rally over the summer time to cease the momentum behind FARE, arguing the Act would result in greater prices for tenants through the lifetime of their lease.
“For those who decide to renew the lease year over year, it’s going to be a problem,” REBNY advised Inman. “When you’re looking at a higher base rent for the first year you’re in an apartment, it’s going to be effectively amortized over time because when you go to renew, generally in New York City, they raise your rent, say 5 percent.”
“So if you’re already at a higher base rent for year one, you’re going to ultimately end up paying more year over year as opposed to paying a one-time fee upfront that for many people is probably going to be to a benefit, particularly if you’re staying in your apartment for multiple years on end,” the affiliation added.
James Whelan | Credit score: LinkedIn
When the Council handed the Act in November, REBNY President James Whelan advised Inman the affiliation would battle towards its enforcement.
“Wednesday’s vote is yet another instance of prioritizing ideology over economic and practical reality when it comes to the city’s rental housing stock,” Whelan mentioned in an emailed assertion. “The FARE Act will make it harder for tenants to find housing, raise rents, and make the hard work of real estate agents even more difficult.”
He added, “REBNY will continue to pursue all options to fight against this harmful legislation on behalf of our members and the renters they serve.”
Because the lawsuit works its manner via the New York district court docket, REBNY could have a good friend in Mayor Adams, who opposes FARE.
“Life will determine if I was accurate in my concerns if this goes into the rent of New Yorkers as they pay the rent,” Adams mentioned at a Dec. 3 press convention. “Not only was I a small property owner, but I was a real estate agent. So I know what it is to pass off cost to the owners of buildings.”
Learn the complete lawsuit beneath:
