Site Map
Sign up for
Email Alerts

Translate This Page

An Introduction to the NYC Rent Guidelines Board
Table of Contents


Go To:
(Part I) (Part II) (Part III)

Security of Tenure

It has long been recognized that any "attempt to limit the landlord's demands" through rent regulation would fail "[I]f the tenant remained subject to the landlord's power to evict".114 Therefore, under rent regulation the general power to evict is eliminated in favor of a limited power to remove tenants for specifically enumerated causes. Also, special protections have been added to protect tenants from illegal evictions and harassment.

Under the rent control system tenants have permanent tenure and their rights and obligations are fully spelled out in the state Rent and Eviction Regulations.115 Consequently they are referred to as statutory tenants and they do not face periodic lease renewals. Rent controlled tenancies may only be terminated on grounds set forth in the Rent and Eviction Regulations. Under the rent stabilization system tenants are also granted permanent tenure, but their rights and obligations are defined by both the Rent Stabilization Code and their individual leases. Rent stabilized tenants have a general right to renew their leases as they expire. Under rent stabilization there are two means for ending a tenancy: First, there are a number of grounds to evict the tenant such as nonpayment of rent, maintaining a nuisance, illegal subletting or use of the apartment for unlawful purposes; Second, there are grounds for refusing to renew the lease such as recovery of the apartment for the owner's personal use or recovery when the tenant maintains a primary residence elsewhere.

If an owner attempts to remove the tenant unlawfully s/he will be subject to both civil and criminal penalties. The Rent Stabilization Code provides as follows:

It shall be unlawful for any owner or any person acting on his or her behalf, directly, or indirectly, to engage in any course of conduct (including, but not limited to, interruption or discontinuance of services, or unwarranted or baseless court proceedings) which interferes with, or disturbs, or is intended to interfere with or disturb the privacy, comfort peace, repose, or quiet enjoyment of the tenant in his or her occupancy of the housing accommodation, or is intended to cause the tenant to vacate such housing accommodation or waive any right afforded under this Code.116

If a tenant was removed from a unit through harassment, the owner is not permitted to collect a vacancy increase from the next tenant who occupies the unit.117 Whether or not the tenant vacates, the Division of Housing and Community Renewal may impose fines against the owner and future rent increases of any sort may be denied.118 Further, criminal penalties may be sought through the Office of Corporation Counsel under the Unlawful Eviction Law.119 Note that this latter law protects tenants in all rental units - not just rent regulated units.120 In addition, treble damages for unlawful evictions may be imposed under section 853 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law.

Fair Returns

The broad goal of the rent stabilization system is the establishment of "fair" rent levels for both owners and tenants. Fairness, of course, is a normative matter that is open to interpretation. Given the overall legal framework supporting the establishment of rent guidelines the term appears to connote a process which attempts to balance three objectives. One objective is the establishment of rent levels which are generally humane - in the sense that owners are not permitted to fully exploit demand for housing accommodations driven by situational scarcity. A corresponding objective is setting rents that reasonably support the reliance and expectation interests of good faith (non-speculative) investors. While the Board cannot guarantee a profit for every owner, it should attempt to preserve the kind of returns that a competitive market with a vacancy rate in excess of 5% might generate - given all the various and changing factors of supply and demand such as tenant incomes and costs of operation. Finally, fairness requires that the overall rent burden be allocated among tenants in an even- handed way - or that differentials in rent adjustments among similarly situated tenants bear some reasonable relationship to legitimate public policy.

Does rent stabilization produce "fair" returns? In order to consider this question logically it would be useful to have a common measure to determine whether the goal is being achieved. Unfortunately, much of the disagreement over the effectiveness of rent regulation is really disagreement over the objectives of rent regulation. Rent regulation may have many purposes:

  • to keep rents generally affordable;
  • to maintain a building's net operating income at stable levels; or
  • to ensure a "reasonable return"

The closest thing to an authoritative measure for considering the success of the rent stabilization system is contained in the law itself, and, like many laws, the rent stabilization law contains some objectives and ideals that may not operate in complete harmony.

The rent stabilization law generally directs that the Rent Guidelines Board consider cost-push inflationary factors such as increases in heating fuel or labor costs before establishing rent adjustments. In addition, special rent increases administered by the DHCR are permitted to encourage major capital improvements, individual apartment improvements and to remedy economic hardship. Yet, the same laws appear to prescribe an end to the effects of demand-pull inflation on rents. This is the type of inflation that commonly results from a shortage or fixed supply of a needed good. As Justice Bellacosa summarized in the case of Manocherian v. Lenox Hill Hospital, "the State intended to protect dwellers who could not compete in an overheated rental market, through no fault of their own... and to 'forestall profiteering, speculation and other disruptive practices.'"121

Notably, the Rent Stabilization Law does not speak about "profits." There is a good reason for this. Simply put, the Board does not control profit levels. Any such attempt would result in an intractable circularity problem: rents rise, property values climb, investors must spend more to purchase properties, rents must rise again to maintain the same relative return on investment.

Generally speaking there are two investors in every rental property: the purchaser and the lending institution. The lender's profit is determined by the interest it charges and the percentage of defaults it copes with. The purchaser's profit is determined by the return it realizes on the amount of capital it has placed at risk. In a very real sense, virtually all owners of rent stabilized properties receive market rate profit levels.122 That is because purchase prices are wholly unregulated and market driven.

The rent stream of any given building will determine its market value. Although the Board sets the rents, it cannot order an investor to pay more (or a seller to take less) than the building is worth in market terms. Thus, if the Board sets a rent below market, it will limit a building's appreciation and value. Any purchaser of that building will pay less for it in order to ensure that the investment is worthwhile. Whether the investment was a wise one will depend on how well the investor predicted future rent streams given the regulatory environment in which the building operates. The ultimate effect of rent stabilization is, therefore, to mute property values - not profits.123 In the absence of rent regulation an investor would presumably pay more for the subject property, and, in a sense, gamble against what the market would bring in terms of changes in demand. Under rent regulation, the investor pays less and gambles against what regulatory authorities will do.

Of course, the Board may affect profit levels in unforeseen ways if it acts unpredictably or erratically. Thus, if the Board gave a far larger rent increase than its prior practices would have suggested, prudent investors would be awarded with an unexpected windfall. Conversely, if the Board adopted rent adjustments well below those suggested by its past actions, the reasonable expectations of owners who purchased stabilized buildings would be frustrated.

In sum, one factor in ensuring fair profit levels is steady and predictable behavior on the part of the Rent Guidelines Board. Stable behavior on the part of the Board allows new investors to make a rational assessment of whether or not the asking price of a particular building is competitive relative to other investments.

The Commensurate Rent Formula

Stability requires that the Board monitor the changing relationship between operating costs and rent levels. The general approach taken by the Rent Guidelines Board over the past three decades has been to "keep owners whole" for changes in operating costs, and to protect net operating incomes from the effects of inflation. This has been accomplished, with varying degrees of accuracy, through the use of an annual price index of operating costs, along with certain formulas falling under the heading of "the commensurate rent adjustment." The "traditional" commensurate formula simply attempted to ensure that net operating income was preserved in nominal terms - unadjusted for inflation.

The commensurate rent formula has evolved over the years to a rather precise mechanism that reflects actual lease renewal and vacancy patterns from year to year. In addition, an adjustment has been added to preserve net operating income against the effects of inflation. A complete discussion of the various formulae used to construct the commensurate adjustment is included in Appendix J.

The commensurate is neither a rent floor nor a ceiling. When the commensurate is relatively high, the Board tends to adopt guidelines somewhat lower than it suggests. When it is low, the guidelines typically exceed it. For example, in 1990, when a 21% spike in fuel and utility costs resulted in a commensurate rent adjustment of 7.3% for one year leases and 9.5% for two year leases (under the "traditional" formula), the Board adopted a 4.5% for one year leases and a 7% for two year leases. In 2000, the traditional formula suggested a 4.8% one-year guideline and a 6% two-year guideline; the CPI adjusted formula suggested a 6% one year guideline and a 10% two year guideline (largely due to fuel costs). The Board adopted a 4% one-year guideline and a 6% two-year guideline.

By comparison, in the low inflation years of 1995, 1998 and 1999, when the traditional commensurate was 0% for one year leases and ranged from 1.1% to 1.8% for two year leases, the Board adopted 2% increases for one year leases and 4% increases for two year leases. For further detail, see the chart of commensurate rent increase formulas as presented to the Rent Guidelines Board, the PIOC percent change and final rent guidelines.

The practice of "smoothing" out year to year adjustments to obtain a steady pattern of increases, although not without its critics, has been a consistent feature in past RGB orders. This may, in part, be due to the fact that approximately one third of tenants do not experience renewals in any given year. Those tenants in the second year of a two-year lease, signed under a prior guideline, may either miss, or be consistently hit by periodic jumps in the guidelines. Consequently, the Board has leaned against mechanical application of the commensurate rent formula.

Historically, the Board has managed to maintain a very stable relationship between building incomes and expenses. Indeed, the best evidence available to the Board's staff suggests that pre-war buildings, which include more than two out of three stabilized units, have witnessed a substantial increase in relative net operating income since 1970. This resulted from a decline in the proportion of each rent dollar devoted to operating expenses (the "O&M to Rent Ratio"). This occurred despite the fact that aging buildings usually tend to see a rise in the O&M to Rent Ratio over time. Relative returns in post-war buildings are more difficult to track, but appear to be stable. Overall, the RGB staff has estimated that in 1967 about 62% of rent was devoted to operating expenses. By 1997, in essentially the same group of buildings, only 59% of rent went to operating costs. As a result, average net operating income rose from 38% to 41% of rent over the period of stabilization. A detailed analysis of this issue was set forth in a May 13, 1999 memo to the Board, and is included herein at Appendix K. The usefulness of this memo cannot be overstated. It provides the best evidence available to the Board of the effects of rent stabilization on operating returns since the rent stabilization system began. The original income and expense review from 1993 is also included herein in Appendix K1.

Protection Against Tenant Abuses

In attempting to equalize bargaining relations between owners and tenants the rent regulation laws conferred special benefits on tenants that were generally intended to protect their welfare. If such benefits are exchanged for the personal enrichment of the tenant, or if put to frivolous use, the objective of the laws would be undermined. Consequently, the rent stabilization laws prohibit or limit tenants from engaging in such practices as subletting or assigning apartment leases at a profit; assigning leases without the owner's consent; passing lease renewal rights on to occupants who have no legally recognized relationship with the tenant; or claiming the protection of rent regulation when the apartment is not used as a primary residence. In addition to these prohibitions, the rent laws continue to permit the remedy of eviction for practices that are generally recognized as abuses. These practices include non-payment of rent, maintaining a nuisance, use of the unit for illegal or immoral purposes or refusal to provide access for repairs.124


Subletting rent stabilized apartments is permissible under limited circumstances. Apartments may be sublet for two years in any four-year period if the owner has agreed to the sublet. The tenant must, however, be able to establish that the apartment will be maintained for his or her primary residence and that s/he intends to return to it upon the expiration of the sublease.125 An owner may not unreasonably refuse to grant permission to sublet, and a failure to respond within 30 days to a request from the tenant for permission to sublet is considered an approval of the request. This procedure is described in detail in the Real Property Law §226-b, which governs all sublets in buildings with four or more units. In rent stabilized apartments subtenants may not be charged any rent in addition to the stabilized rent except for the following:

  • Ten percent may be added by the prime tenant for furnishings - the 10% furniture allowance is a constant statutory percentage and is not affected by actions of the Rent Guidelines Board. This fee is paid by the subtenant to the prime tenant; and
  • The sublet allowance under the rent guideline in effect at the commencement of the prime lease may be added by the owner. This allowance percentage is determined annually by the Rent Guidelines Board. The sublet allowance is paid by the subtenant to the prime tenant, who in turn pays it to the owner.

Lease Assignment

A rent stabilized tenant may not freely assign his or her lease (i.e. transfer to another all rights under the lease). According to §226-b of the Real Property Law, written permission of the owner is required unless a right to assign is already contained in the lease. If the owner unreasonably withholds such permission, the tenant's only remedy is to gain release from the lease after 30 days notice to the owner. If permission to assign is granted, the owner is entitled to increase the rent by the vacancy allowance in effect at the time the departing tenant last renewed his or her lease.

Tenants are generally obligated to honor their lease obligations throughout the lease period. Tenants who vacate before their leases expire may be held liable for rent due through the remaining period.

The limitations on assignments should not be confused with the "succession rights" of occupants of the apartment who are family members as defined in §2520.6(o) of the Rent Stabilization Code. These occupants may have the right to renew the lease in their own name upon the death or departure of the tenant of record.126

Succession Rights

Spouses or family members127 who have resided in the apartment for the qualifying periods provided in the Rent Stabilization Code may remain in the apartment as fully protected rent stabilized tenants. The inclusion of adult lifetime partners within the definition of spouse or family member is recognized by the Division of Housing and Community Renewal and has been upheld by the courts.128

Primary Residence

Under §2524.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code an owner may refuse to renew the lease of any tenant who does not occupy his/her apartment as a primary resident. The evidence necessary to establish non-primary residence is left to the discretion of "a court of competent jurisdiction". Often tax filings, voter registration records, utility bills, drivers licenses and other evidence of a regular presence in the unit are reviewed.

Finally, tenants who refuse to execute properly offered leases are subject to eviction.129


A rent stabilized tenant's right to have a roommate is secured by Section 235-F of the Real Property Law, which governs additional occupants in all types of housing. Prior to the last revision of the Rent Stabilization Code, a tenant's right to charge rent to an additional occupant was unlimited. Under § 2525.7 of the new code, rent stabilized tenants may charge roommates no more than a proportionate share of the rent. A proportionate share of the rent is determined by dividing the legal rent by the total number of tenants named on the lease and the total number of occupants in the apartment. However, a tenant's spouse and family, or an occupant's dependent child, are not included in the total.

(Part I) (Part II) (Part III)

An Introduction to the NYC Rent Guidelines Board
Table of Contents



114 Quoting O.W. Holmes, J., U.S. Supreme Court Block v. Hirsh 256 U.S. 135,157-58 (1921).

115 NYCRR §2200 et. seq.

116 R.S.C. §2525.5

117 See RSL §26-510(d).

118 See RSC §2526.2(c)(3) & (d).

119 N.Y.C. Admin. Code §26-521 et. seq.

120 See also §235-d of the Real Property law granting all tenants the right to obtain injunctive relief against harassment; §286(6) of the Multiple Dwelling Law denying free market status to loft units held by owners found guilty of harassment; §26-412(d) & §26-403(e)(2)(i)(9) of the NYC Rent Control Law, making harassment a violation and forbidding decontrol of units vacated via harassment, respectively. Further, see §2.7(2)(a) of the City's 421-a regulations - included in Appendix P - prohibiting deregulation in certain cases where harassment occurs, and §26-504.2 of the RSL prohibiting high rent vacancy decontrol in the case of harassment.

121 84 N.Y.2d 385 (1994) cert denied, 514 U.S. 1109 (1995).

122 A notable exception to this generalization would be those owners who purchased buildings in an open market environment and were subsequently subjected to rent regulations. The precise proportion of such buildings in the stabilized stock is not known, but is thought to be relatively small.

123 Notably, in empirical terms, the actions of the Rent Guidelines Board have not been shown to mute growth in the re-sale value of rent stabilized buildings. In a survey of real estate transactions for rental buildings in New York City covering the period from 1976 through 1993, median sales prices increased over 400% while the national inflation rate increased at less than half that rate. See Sales Price Data, Rent Stabilized Housing in New York City: A Summary of Rent Guidelines Board Research, 1993, p. 112. Although this increase may be affected by a variety of factors, such as the type and quantity of buildings being sold, this consistent trend does suggest that, in general, the RGB has not acted to frustrate the reasonable expectations of good faith investors.

124 Procedures used in eviction proceedings are generally governed by Article 7 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law.

125 See RSC §2525.6.

126 See RSC §2523.5(b).

127 "Family member" is defined as a husband, wife, son, daughter, stepson, stepdaughter, father, mother, stepfather, stepmother, brother, sister, grandfather, grandmother, grandson, granddaughter, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law or daughter-in-law of the tenant or permanent tenant. See also here for a discussion of changes to the definition of family member under the Rent Regulation Reform Act of 1997.

128 This regulation was upheld by the N.Y. State Court of Appeals. See Lease Succession Regulations Upheld, N.Y.L.J., 12/22/93, page 1, col. 3, describing the court's ruling in RSA v. Higgins, 164 AD 2d 283 (1st Dept. 1990), Affirmed, 83 N.Y. 2d 156 (1993), cert denied, 512 U.S. 1213 (1994).

129 See RSC §2524.3(f). Always Open Go to: Home | Contact Us | FAQs | Privacy Statement | Site Map