Court Finds Albany's Good Cause Eviction Law to Be Invalid

The Supreme Court of Albany County found that the City of Albany’s Good Cause Eviction law (Local Law F of 2021) was in direct conflict with and preempted by New York State law. The plaintiffs argued that Albany’s Good Cause Eviction law “attempts to regulate rental rates and tenant evictions at the local level, which is preempted by State law.” The court found that Local Law F of 2021 was in direct conflict with New York State’s Real Property Law (RPL) and Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL). 

The court pointed out that “there is nothing in the RPAPL that requires a landlord to show ‘good cause’ after a lease expires in order to be successful in a special proceeding to evict a tenant.” The court further stated that, “To the contrary, RPAPL expressly permits eviction upon the mere showing that the terms of a tenant’s lease have expired.” The court found that Local Law F not only added “good cause” requirements that did not exist under New York State law, it also restricted a landlord’s right to evict a tenant even where a lease had expired or there was no written lease. This was in direct conflict with the RPAPL.

The court also found the Albany law was in direct conflict with RPL Section 228. Under Section 228, a landlord is permitted to end a month-to-month tenancy on 30 days’ notice to the tenant. The court pointed out that there is no requirement under Section 228 to “demonstrate good cause” in order for a landlord to terminate a tenancy. Additionally, under Section 226-c, a landlord may raise rents by 5 percent or more provided the tenant is given “adequate written notice” at the time of renewal for those tenants who have written leases, and upon “sufficient notice” for those tenants under month-to-month tenancies. The court pointed out that, under the current law, “The landlord’s right to increase rent is not conditioned upon a showing of good cause.” The court held that Local Law F clearly conflicts with the RPL in that it “…allows a court to interfere with a landlord’s right to increase rent by determining ‘whether all or part of the rent due and owing is the result of unconscionable rent increase or pattern of rent increases relative to the tenant’s ability to afford said increase.” 

The court ultimately held that since Sections 30-327 and 30-328 of Local Law F “altered substantive provisions and procedures of existing state law by imposing limitations and prerequisites to the commencement of an eviction proceeding that are not required under state law,” they were deemed null and void. The court further held that since the remaining provisions of Local Law F were enacted solely to support Sections 30-327 and 30-328, the entire law was held to be invalid. [Download PDF of decision here.]

Pulsatere v. City of Albany: Index No. 909653-21 (Sup. Ct. Albany Co.; 6/30/22; Ryba, J)[7-pg. doc.]