New York real estate industry appeals broker-fee case ruling
(Bloomberg) -- Real estate groups are challenging a ruling by a federal judge that allowed New York City to begin enforcing a new law requiring landlords, rather than their tenants, to pay fees for hiring listing brokers.
US District Judge Ronnie Abrams on June 10 denied a request by the Real Estate Board of New York, the New York State Association of Realtors and others to pause the law while their lawsuit proceeds. The ruling was another setback for the industry's legal fight against the measure, which went into effect on June 11.
The groups on June 12 filed an appeal of Abrams' decision to the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The City Council adopted the measure in November to end the longstanding practice of tenants being forced to pay costs incurred by landlords to hire the brokers who list their properties, which can add thousands of dollars to housing costs. The real estate industry argued the new law branded brokers as villains and would force landlords to raise rents to cover the costs of hiring them.
New York City renters who settle on apartments that have broker fees pay an average of almost $13,000 to secure the keys to a property, which frequently includes thousands of dollars in fees for brokers hired by landlords to secure tenants, according to an analysis by StreetEasy released last year. Roughly 40% to 50% of listings on StreetEasy have required lease signers to pay the commissions of agents hired by their new landlords, which have typically ranged from one month's rent to 15% of the annual bill.
The Real Estate Board contends that the law, known as Fairness in Apartment Rental Expenses Act, or FARE Act, interferes with exclusive agreements that landlords sign with brokers to list their properties and find tenants, in violation of the Constitution's bar against state laws impairing private contracts. It also argues the law violates the free-speech rights of landlords and brokers who publish real estate listings and then seek to receive compensation from tenants for the cost of the listing service.
The industry's lawsuit alleges that the law will make rent-stabilized apartments too costly to operate and force landlords to raise rents to cover the cost of broker fees. The industry says tenants usually pay less over the life of a lease when commissions are paid separately, and that some are already refusing to pay broker fees even though the law hasn't taken effect yet.
The law could dramatically change the dynamics of the city's highly competitive rental market, where prices have soared since pandemic restrictions began easing in 2021. The median cost of new Manhattan leases was $4,571 in May, reaching another all-time high, according to appraiser Miller Samuel Inc. and Douglas Elliman. Prices have also set records in the outer boroughs.
The case is Real Estate Board of New York v City of New York, 24-CV-9678, US District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
-More stories like this are available on bloomberg.com
©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Delhi govt to host exhibition on Emergency at Connaught Place on June 25
The Delhi government will host a special exhibition at Central Park in Connaught Place on Wednesday to mark the 50th anniversary of the Emergency imposed in 1975, officials said on Friday. Delhi govt to host exhibition on Emergency at Connaught Place on June 25 The event, open to the public with free entry, will feature rare documents, photographs, and performances that highlight the suspension of civil liberties and democratic rights during the 21-month period under then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. The exhibition, which will begin at 10am, is expected to be attended by Chief Minister Rekha Gupta, her cabinet colleagues, and senior officials. Preparations are being overseen by Delhi's minister of art, culture, language and tourism, Kapil Mishra, who chaired a review meeting on Friday. 'June 25 should be observed as a day of resolve to protect the Constitution and democracy. It is essential that the younger generation understands how the Constitution was crushed during the Emergency. Citizens' rights were violated, and press freedom was brutally suppressed,' said Mishra. He said the exhibition is part of a larger awareness campaign that includes theatre performances, seminars, and public discussions, being organised to commemorate what the Delhi government is calling 'Constitution Killing Day.' Describing the Emergency as a 'dark chapter' in India's democratic history, Mishra said the initiative aims to honour those who resisted the suppression of rights during that period. 'This cultural outreach is a tribute to those who fought for democracy and freedom of expression in the face of authoritarianism,' he said.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Speak freely
Why all courts must protect your right to speak your mind In India, the Constitution says you have the right to speak freely – as long as you don't break certain fair rules (like spreading hate or lies). But this right only really works if all courts across the country protect it. Recently, the Supreme Court (SC) – the top court in India – stood up strongly for free speech. In the case of a film called Thug Life by Kamal Haasan, someone said their feelings were hurt and wanted the film blocked in Karnataka. But the SC said no – just because someone is offended doesn't mean another person should lose their right to express themselves. If hurt feelings were enough, then free speech would always be in danger. This isn't the first time. Just a few months ago, in a case about poet Imran Pratapgarhi, the SC said that even if lots of people dislike your opinion, you still have the right to share it. But not all courts agree. Recently, the Calcutta High Court told a young person, 'You can't hurt others just because you have free speech.' And the Karnataka High Court told Haasan something similar. Lower courts also sometimes say things that go against what the SC has already made very clear. This creates confusion and makes people afraid to speak their minds, because they don't know if a local court might punish them, even if the SC would support them. In a strong democracy, free speech matters. And if it's a right promised by the Constitution, every court – not just the top one – needs to protect it. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Last word
HCs and trial courts must follow SC's line on free speech The Constitution is clear – you have the right to freedom of speech and expression, subject to reasonable restrictions. But like an Ashokan edict carved in stone, the Constitution's letter is only as good as the spirit of the institutions tasked with upholding it. In the Thug Life case, SC has once again struck a blow for free speech. While clearing the Kamal Haasan film's release in Karnataka, it has made it abundantly clear that one person's 'hurt sentiments' are not a reasonable ground for curbing another's right to expression: 'In India…there will never be an end to the hurt sentiment phenomenon. But for that, right to free speech cannot be jeopardised…' Three months ago, in the Imran Pratapgarhi case, SC had forcefully made the same point: 'Even if a large number of persons dislike the views expressed by another, the right of the person to express the views must be respected and protected.' As the chief arbiter of the land, SC could not have made itself clearer in March any more than it can now. There's no way its word can be misunderstood or misinterpreted. Yet, Calcutta HC told a 22-year-old early this month: 'Look, we have freedom of speech but that doesn't mean you will go on to hurt others.' Then, Karnataka HC told Haasan: 'You or any citizen have no right to hurt sentiments of the masses…' And lower courts' views on free speech are generally even more stifling. This divergence of opinion within the judiciary has a chilling effect on free speech because there's only one SC above hundreds of HCs and subordinate courts. If free speech is a pillar of democracy, and a tenet of the Constitution, it shouldn't have to run the gauntlet with the hope of eventual salvation in the apex court. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email This piece appeared as an editorial opinion in the print edition of The Times of India.
