An upstate appeals court has ripped out a key legal protection for New Yorkers who pay rent with housing vouchers, clearing the way for more landlords to say "no" to tenants whose assistance comes from the government.
This week’s ruling struck down core parts of a 2019 state law that had barred property owners from rejecting applicants simply because they use vouchers to cover their rent, according to the court’s written decision posted on NYCourts.
In that opinion, a panel of upstate appellate judges concluded that the 2019 amendment to New York’s Human Rights Law improperly forces landlords into federal Section 8-style Housing Assistance Payment contracts, which come with required inspections and access to owners’ records. The judges found that those conditions raise Fourth Amendment concerns, the court document shows.
How the Case Got Here
The case stems from a 2022 lawsuit filed by Attorney General Letitia James against Ithaca landlord Jason Fane, after her office alleged that agents for Fane’s companies refused to accept Section 8 vouchers from would-be tenants, according to a press release from the Attorney General’s office.
Fane’s legal team argued that the state law effectively forced landlords to agree to inspections and record access as a condition of renting to voucher holders. A trial judge sided with that view before the case moved up to the appellate panel, as previously reported by Ithaca Voice.
What the Ruling Means for Voucher Holders
The decision puts fresh pressure on renters who rely on federal Housing Choice Vouchers and New York City’s CityFHEPS program, both of which are already infamous for long searches and repeated rejections.
More than 60,000 households, or about 136,000 New Yorkers, currently use CityFHEPS, while roughly 123,000 city households use Housing Choice Vouchers, according to the New York City Department of Social Services and the NYU Furman Center. CityFHEPS is also a major expense for the city budget, with analysts estimating its yearly price tag at more than $1 billion, per CBCNY. That scale makes any legal change to voucher protections a likely flashpoint in city politics.
Officials and Advocates Respond
The Attorney General’s office told Gothamist it is reviewing the decision and weighing whether to appeal.
Fane’s attorney said his client was “extremely pleased” with the outcome and argued that landlords cannot be forced to waive constitutional protections, according to the same outlet.
Fair-housing organizations that filed amicus briefs urging the court to keep the anti-discrimination protections in place warned that the ruling could be used to erode local tenant safeguards. One such brief came from advocates represented by PRRAC, who cautioned in court filings that the decision might invite broader challenges to source-of-income protections.
Legal Implications and Next Steps
At the center of the fight is a basic but weighty question: Can a state anti-discrimination law be interpreted to require private landlords to enter a federal subsidy contract that is normally voluntary, complete with inspection rules and access to records? The appellate court said no in its opinion on NYCourts.
If the Attorney General seeks further review, the case would move to New York’s highest court, the Court of Appeals. Any request and subsequent decision could take months, and the outcome will shape how broadly this ruling can be used in future disputes.
In the meantime, landlords and local governments are likely to probe the limits of voucher rules, while tenant attorneys brace for new lawsuits and possible legislative tweaks in Albany and City Hall.
For renters who use vouchers, tenant advocates say the safest move right now is to stay plugged in: connect with local legal-aid groups and housing navigators to understand how the ruling might affect individual cases while the state decides its next move.
This story will be updated if the Attorney General files an appeal or if the Court of Appeals agrees to hear the case.
