logo
NYC broker fee law — which protects tenants from costs — challenged by real estate agents in 11th-hour push

NYC broker fee law — which protects tenants from costs — challenged by real estate agents in 11th-hour push

New York Post6 days ago

These agents are trying to broker a last-minute deal.
New York City's real estate industry is making an 11th-hour bid to halt a new law that shifts the burden of costly broker fees away from renters before it takes effect next month.
The Real Estate Board of New York, the city's powerful group of over 10,000 real estate professionals, filed a motion earlier this month seeking to put the Fairness in Apartment Rental Expenses Act on pause until the court battle over the law plays out.
Here's everything you need to now about the new rules — which will launch on June 11 unless a federal judge agrees to REBNY's motion.
3 New York City's real estate industry is making an 11th-hour bid to halt the new broker fee ban before it takes effect next month.
BullRun – stock.adobe.com
What is the Fairness in Apartment Rental Expenses (FARE) Act?
The FARE Act — passed in City Council with a veto-proof majority of 42-8 on Nov. 13 — prohibits agents representing property owners from charging prospective renters a 'broker fee.' It also requires that all fees a tenant owes be included in rental agreements and real estate listings.
Proponents of the legislation say it will help ease the city's housing crisis by cutting down prohibitive up-front costs for tenants, including broker fees — which are typically about 15% of the annual cost of a rental unit, according to real estate website OpenIgloo.
But critics of the law argue landlords may still sneak in broker fees onto tenants through higher monthly rents.
Andrew Lieb, managing attorney of boutique real estate litigation law firm Lieb at Law, declares the Big Apple rental market will be 'forever changed' by the FARE Act.
'It will result in tenants losing access to housing from landlords who simply decide it's not worth it to be a landlord anymore,' Lieb told The Post. 'New York City is really making it impossible for a residential landlord to operate given the plethora of red tape that needs to be navigated just to sign a lease — and then enforcing that lease is a whole other disaster.'
When do broker fees go away?
Unless a federal judge rules otherwise, landlords will be barred from passing on the fee to a tenant after June 11, even if a lease was signed before the effective date, a rep from the Department of Consumer Protection confirmed to The Post.
New York City is one of the few cities where landlords can hire a broker and pass the agent's fee onto a tenant.
3 The Real Estate Board of NY (REBNY) has taken the measure to file an 11th hour push in federal court to stop the city's new Fairness in Apartment Rental Expenses (FARE) Act from going into effect.
rebny.com
New York landlord-tenant lawyer Altagracia B. Pierre Outerbridge expects the mandate to go into effect, and that a federal judge is 'probably not going to block the law' since the court hasn't yet issued a decision.
'The fact that a month has passed (and the law is going into effect in two weeks) without the Court doing anything suggests that it doesn't feel a huge rush to get involved,' Pierre Outerbridge told The Post.
Does this mean that all broker fees are illegal?
Landlords and tenants can still hire their own brokers under the FARE Act.
But landlords can't shift the cost of a broker that is 'exclusively representing the landlord's interests' onto a tenant. This includes fees for brokers who publish listings with the landlord's permission.
'The FARE Act ensures transparency for tenants to not unfairly be burdened with additional costs by placing the responsibility for a broker's fees on the party that actually hired them,' the City Council said in a statement.
What are real estate agents saying?
In the lawsuit filed in December, REBNY attorneys claimed the city's 'profoundly misguided' legislation violated federal and state laws, including constitutional free speech and contract rights.
'The FARE Act is constitutionally flawed on multiple accounts. We are confident that the Courts will agree with us,' a REBNY rep told The Post.
The New York State Association of Realtors further argues the law would drive up rental costs, strip away 'over half' of online rental listings and open the 'floodgates for baseless lawsuits and penalties against brokers.'
3 Last year, the FARE Act was passed in the City Council, which will prohibit agents representing property owners from charging prospective renters a 'broker fee.'
J.C. Rice
'The landlords who still want to use a broker and are allowed to raise the rent to accommodate the shift in responsibility will do so,' Pierre Outerbridge said, adding that some tenants are 'going to be shocked to pay an extra month's rent in broker fees in order to sign their lease.'
'It will exacerbate rental unaffordability,' Violetta Weddepohl, a broker at Serhant, concurred. 'As a result, when leases come up for renewal in a year or two, tenants will face even steeper rent increases.
'I have sympathy for the argument that the broker should be paid by the person who hires them,' she said, 'but the reality is that the landlords can get away with charging higher rent.'
But real estate listing website Streeteasy estimated the average cost to sign a lease on rentals that would have currently charged a broker fee will fall by 41.8% once the law takes effect.
'Rental properties that stopped charging tenants a broker fee in the past did not increase rents beyond broader market trends,' reads a December report from the site. 'The lock-in effect of high upfront costs made it easier for landlords to raise rents faster.'
What are New York City residents saying?
New Yorkers who spoke to The Post were largely in favor of the law taking effect, with nearly every local citing housing affordability as a major concern.
'This is great,' Betsy Laikin, a film producer, told The Post. 'The rents are higher than they've ever been. Why should we pay a broker fee, on top of these rents?'
'I think the broker fee … should not exist,' Luke Atkinson, a 39-year-old painter from Bushwick, Brooklyn, added. '[Brokerage] is a job that doesn't need to exist, and they know it deep down in their souls.
'That's why they're insecure,' he added. 'That's why they're always hustling because it's a job that doesn't need to exist.'
Georgi Georgiev, a bartender from Bulgaria who now resides in Fort Greene, is less optimistic.
'One way or another, we are going to pay it if we are getting an apartment, no matter what. We're never gonna not pay,' Georgiev, 45, said. 'There is gonna be so many loopholes.'
What happens if an apartment has a broker fee after the law is in effect?
The city's Department of Consumer Protection will be enforcing the law after it goes into effect.
It's estimated the agency will require about $500,000 in the next fiscal year for outreach and education related to the law, according to City Council records.
Those caught in violation of the law will be subject to a $1,000 fine for the first violation and a $2,000 fine for each violation within a two-year period.
To file a complaint regarding a FARE Act violation, consumers can visit nyc.gov/consumers or call 311 once the law is in effect.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Hooters shutters dozens of restaurants after bankruptcy filing as industry suffers
Hooters shutters dozens of restaurants after bankruptcy filing as industry suffers

New York Post

time24 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Hooters shutters dozens of restaurants after bankruptcy filing as industry suffers

Hooters has closed dozens of restaurants nationwide just a few months after filing for bankruptcy as a slump in consumer sentiment continues to hit casual dining chains hard. Around 30 locations were shuttered across Florida, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas, according to local news outlets. 'After careful consideration of what is needed to best position our company for the future, Hooters made the difficult decision to close certain Company-owned locations,' with closures effective Wednesday, a Hooters spokesperson told The Post. Hooters has closed dozens of restaurants around the country just a few months after filing for bankruptcy. AP CNN earlier reported the closures. The dining chain, best known for its scantily-clad, all-female staff, filed for bankruptcy in March to address $376 million in debt. At the time, it boasted that its restaurants 'are here to stay' and announced plans to sell all 150 locations to a franchise group backed by the chain's founders. Earlier in the year, Hooters had revealed a 're-Hooterization' effort aimed at creating a more family-friendly image for the chain and improving service times and ingredients. The closures are not a complete surprise, as the chain said it was evaluating its retail footprint during the bankruptcy process. Hooters is just one of many fast-casual dining chains to suffer over the past few years as food prices remain stubbornly high and consumer sentiment slumps, prodding customers to tighten their purse-strings and cook at home more. Last week, Bahama Breeze abruptly closed more than one-third of its locations, or 15 stores, including its sole restaurant on Long Island. The Caribbean-inspired dining chain is owned by Darden Restaurants, which also runs Olive Garden and LongHorn Steakhouse. Hooters is just one of many fast-casual dining chains to suffer over the past few years. Alamy Stock Photo TGI Fridays filed for bankruptcy in November and closed a whopping 100 locations last year. Red Lobster, which struggled to recover from its all-you-can-eat shrimp deal, shuttered at least 50 locations and filed for bankruptcy last May. It hired a new chief executive that summer. Italian restaurant chain Buca di Beppo also closed about 20 locations and filed for bankruptcy in 2024. It was a rough year across the industry. Sales ticked up just 3% across the 500 largest restaurant chains in the US – the slowest rate in a decade aside from the pandemic, according to Technomic's Top 500 Chain Restaurant Report. More than half of those chains saw their sales fail to keep pace with the 4% food service inflation rate, according to the report.

Melania Trump Affirms Commitment To Protecting Children Online
Melania Trump Affirms Commitment To Protecting Children Online

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Melania Trump Affirms Commitment To Protecting Children Online

First Lady Melania Trump sent a message to Federal Trade Commission officials on Wednesday, pledging continued support for protecting children from online exploitation as the agency hosted a workshop examining how tech companies harm young users. The message, delivered to participants of the FTC's 'Attention Economy: How Big Tech Firms Exploit Children and Hurt Families' workshop, signals the Trump administration's focus on digital safety for minors. 'I look forward to hearing the outcomes from this workshop so we can continue to shape federal policies that protect children,' Melania said in her written remarks. 'We will work together to develop tools to empower parents and youth, and we will lean on tech executives in the private sector to do their part.' The First Lady thanked FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson for his leadership on the issue. Ferguson, in turn, credited Melania with helping pass recent legislation targeting online abuse. 'I'm also incredibly grateful to the First Lady for her leadership on the 'TAKE IT DOWN Act,'' Ferguson said. 'Getting legislation done in any circumstance is very difficult, and the 'TAKE IT DOWN' Act could not have gotten through Congress without the First Lady's intervention and leadership.' The law, signed by President Donald Trump in May, allows victims to request the swift removal of non-consensual explicit imagery online. That includes content created by artificial intelligence. Melania championed the legislation as part of her BE BEST initiative, which focuses on children's well-being and online protection. The workshop appearance continues that advocacy. In her full message to workshop attendees, Melania acknowledged meeting survivors and families affected by non-consensual intimate imagery. 'Let their courage continue to inspire us to find solutions to protect children and youth from online harm,' she wrote. Still, the First Lady emphasized that passing the TAKE IT DOWN Act marked progress but not completion. The administration plans to develop additional tools for parents while pressing tech executives to increase safeguards.

Good Riddance to New York City's Tenant-Paid Broker's Fee
Good Riddance to New York City's Tenant-Paid Broker's Fee

Yahoo

time3 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Good Riddance to New York City's Tenant-Paid Broker's Fee

With the FARE Act set to shift the costly burden from renters to landlords, I've been reflecting on what the system actually offered me and other New Yorkers. In 2022, when I made the decision to move to New York City from New Haven, Connecticut, I was told that finding a place to rent for the first time would be a shock to the system. But after months of research—and an unholy amount of time scrolling Zillow, StreetEasy, and Craigslist—I finally found a listing for the perfect apartment. It was on the Upper West Side, within walking distance of my new job. It was a "one-bedroom flex," meaning my wife and I could set up a work-from-home space to accommodate our hybrid schedules. And it was beautiful: tucked atop a prewar, south-facing townhouse—with high ceilings, exposed brick, an ostensibly working fireplace, and a pretty incredible semiprivate rooftop terrace featuring views of 18 water tanks (I counted) that felt straight out of an Edward Hopper painting. The only problem was that the unit—listed at $3,850 per month—was nearly double what I had ever paid for an apartment before. Also, I hadn't fully internalized that New York is one of only two major U.S. cities where tenants are expected to pay a fee to brokers who are hired by landlords to show and fill their rental properties, which usually cost one month's rent or 15 percent of the annual rent, according to The City. (Though, because there is no legal cap on how much brokers can charge, there have been reports of brokers charging tenants even more exorbitant fees for highly competitive rent-controlled or rent-stabilized apartments.) The broker's fee for my apartment was 11 percent of the annual rent ($4,300), on top of the first month's rent and the matching security deposit. Now, the Fairness in Apartment Rental Expenses (FARE) Act—a landmark bill that shifts the burden of the broker's fee away from renters and onto the landlords who hire them, which Dwell contributor Anjulie Rao previously reported "could upend a hurdle in the city's notoriously difficult apartment hunting process"—is set to go into effect on June 11 (while the city's real estate lobby fights to block the law in the background). The FARE Act, introduced by Councilmember Chi Ossé of the 36th District and passed by City Council in November 2024, comes after years of thwarted attempts to reform the city's broker's fee system. So naturally, I've been reflecting on what I received in exchange for my compulsory broker's fee—and curious about the experiences of other New York renters. — I certainly didn't want to dip into emergency savings, but I suppose I wanted my perfect New York apartment more. So I called the number on the listing, thus commencing the service I received in exchange for $4,300. This—in order of least to most frustrating—is more or less what I got: No actual face time with the broker, who outsourced the showing to a colleague, which was fine (considering our later interactions), but it was still a bit jarring to be asked to Venmo a faceless-someone thousands of dollars. A real scolding when, on a weekday afternoon, I hadn't received the application I was promised and accordingly called the broker, who was shopping at Home Depot with his wife and asked why I was disturbing him. Typos everywhere, which is absolutely forgivable when it's an extra letter in a date ("May 1stt") but much less so when it suggests that the rent is $800 per month lower than advertised. Incorrect information on the official lease—including the wrong expiration date, a clause that the building did not allow pets (which it did), and a disclaimer that our fireplace was strictly decorative (which it wasn't). It's tempting to chalk my experience up to one-time bad service. But the more I reflect, the more I think that my experience is a product of a few layered problems that, taken together, amount to a systemic failure for New York renters. According to a recent New York Times story, StreetEasy reported that as of March 2o25, roughly 57.5 percent of rentals on its platform did not require tenants to pay a broker's fee. This means that avoiding paying a broker's fee could cut a New York City renter's housing options almost half in an already fiercely competitive rental market. — When I told my coworker I was seeking the perspectives of folks who've had notable experiences with brokers, he asked me if I had tried throwing a rock. In New York, they're everywhere. Indeed, it didn't take much looking to learn that another renter on the Upper West Side, Fabrice Houdart, a human rights advocate, had a similarly frustrating encounter with not just any broker, but the very same one who listed my unit. After not hearing back from the broker about a rental application for nearly a week, Houdart CC'ed the broker's manager, which seemed to anger the broker so much that he withdrew the offer against Houdart's wishes. The urgency was high for Houdart, a single father seeking housing near the school his twins were set to attend. Ultimately, after filing a complaint with the New York Department of State, Houdart cut his losses and secured a different apartment the following week (with a 12 percent broker's fee). But the experience left him with a sour taste. "I had this very awful experience because I had zero power. I feel the broker and the landlord have all the power," Houdart says. " [The] goal was to make as much money as possible. And I was only a number." For other New Yorkers, forced broker's fees have acted as a barrier to renting altogether. Alex Sramek, a technical writer, first moved to New York in 2013, and was initially excited when he found an "unreasonably cheap" three-month sublet within a three-bedroom unit in Washington Heights. Sramek moved in and immediately hit it off with his new roommates. But three months later—when the sublease period was ending and the group identified another nearby apartment to move into together—they were told they would have to come up with about a 15 percent broker's fee, which they couldn't afford. "We ended up just splitting ways," Sramek says. "We each just sublet in different apartments and we lost touch and it was kind of the end of that." After years of bouncing around from sublease to sublease, Sramek eventually landed his own lease on a one-bedroom apartment. The catch? It was only possible for him after the New York Department of State issued guidance to pause forced broker's fees during the pandemic in 2020—guidance that the New York State Supreme Court overturned in 2021 after the Real Estate Board of New York sued. Ever since that brief reprieve, some New Yorkers have been waiting for a bill like the FARE Act to eliminate forced broker's fees once again. Tim Samuel, a software engineer in Astoria, who has paid two broker's fees in New York and describes them as "nonsensical," was excited enough about the legislation that he and some friends attended the City Council hearing at which the bill passed in November. "We were in the background, just supporting and being there…forty-two members out of the fifty-one voted yes." That tally was enough to establish a veto-proof supermajority, meaning supporters of the bill could feel optimistic about its becoming law. That optimism extends to the FARE Act's sponsor, Chi Ossé, who developed the bill after several poor encounters with brokers during his own apartment search in Crown Heights. Ossé kept asking himself the same question: "Do you really want one month's rent for this apartment and you're not even showing up and giving a guy a tour?" When I recently spoke with Ossé, he made a point to say that he isn't "anti-broker." In fact, he ended up hiring a broker himself and had a perfectly positive experience. But he is "anti-things not being fair" and takes issue with the fact that the fees are forced on tenants who never hired brokers in the first place. When I asked Ossé what greater fairness might look like as the law goes into effect, he emphasized what renters will gain: "This just makes mobilization around housing as a tenant in New York City a lot more affordable…and [it] gives tenants more bargaining power, which they don't usually have in the current system." To me, it looks a lot like the sketch of a better future. After years of giving up money and trust in the system, New York City renters are finally set to get something back. Top photo byRelated Reading: Will NYC Renters Finally See the End of the Dreaded Broker's Fee? What the Roaches in My Rent-Stabilized Apartment Taught Me About the Housing Crisis

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store