A Flatbush-based real estate brokerage has agreed to pay $352,250 in penalties and restitution after New York State investigators found it illegally screened out prospective tenants using their housing court histories and pocketed unauthorized holding deposits. The firm, Brooklyn High Rise LLC, denied housing to 203 renters over a six-year span based on past court litigation, according to the state's findings.
The settlement, announced by the Office of the New York State Attorney General on Friday, resolves allegations that the brokerage obtained housing court records during tenant screening between July 15, 2019, and September 5, 2025, and used them to reject applicants — a practice known as tenant blacklisting. Attorney General Letitia James's office, posting on X under the handle NewYorkStateAG
, said Brooklyn High Rise used housing court records as a basis to deny housing to over 200 hard-working New Yorkers and that her office is now making the firm end those illegal screening policies.
According to the Office of the New York State Attorney General, the investigation also uncovered a second scheme: the brokerage charged apartment applicants so-called good faith deposits ranging from $500 to $750 to hold units during processing. Investigators found the company frequently withheld refunds under its online terms whenever applicants missed paperwork deadlines, adding a financial squeeze on top of the screening violations.
How the Investigation Started
The state's inquiry began in May 2025, after regulators discovered Brooklyn High Rise was continuing to request third-party tenant background reports containing past landlord-tenant court proceedings, per the same office's account. That discovery triggered a formal investigation into how the firm — which operates out of 1010 Rogers Avenue and has brokered more than 800 rental listings across Brooklyn, according to its StreetEasy profile — was screening applicants.
Tenant blacklisting has been illegal in New York since the state's Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 took effect. Under Real Property Law Section 227-f, landlords and brokers are strictly barred from refusing to rent to prospective tenants based on past or pending housing court litigation, according to the New York State Senate. New York law goes further, presuming an unlawful rejection occurred whenever a landlord or broker reviews a screening report containing housing court records before denying an applicant, according to guidance published by Leaseswap. That same guidance notes that separate regulations under Real Property Law Section 238-a cap pre-lease screening fees at $20, far below the hundreds of dollars Brooklyn High Rise allegedly charged as holding deposits.
Part of a Broader Crackdown
Before the 2019 reforms, the New York State Office of Court Administration sold bulk electronic Housing Court data feeds directly to tenant screening bureaus, letting automated systems flag renters for blacklisting regardless of whether their prior cases were dismissed or won, according to the New York State Bar Association. That history is part of why the Attorney General's office has kept pressing enforcement actions in recent years.
The Brooklyn High Rise settlement follows other state actions against tenant blacklisting, including cases against Parkchester Preservation Management in October 2025 and Clipper Equity LLC in August 2022, as reported by the Bronx Times. Lawmakers in Albany have signaled the current enforcement structure may not be enough on its own. In April, state legislators introduced Senate Bill S9719, which would let tenants directly sue landlords for damages over blacklisting, arguing that existing civil penalties and the Attorney General's exclusive enforcement authority fail to adequately deter persistent rulebreakers.
For now, the $352,250 settlement stands as the latest reminder that Brooklyn renters denied housing over old court paperwork — or squeezed for deposits they were never entitled to lose — have state law on their side, even if pursuing that recourse currently runs through the Attorney General's office rather than the courts themselves.
