Proposed Penalties for Violation of Prohibition of Certain Fees Charged to Tenants by Landlords and Real Estate Agents

Online comments: 5

• Alex Ahmed

  As a tenant and working New Yorker, these proposed changes would be extremely beneficial to me. It makes no sense for prospective tenants to pay broker fees. One time, I saw an apartment. The broker was late, and all he did was open the door for me. He couldn’t answer any of my questions, and when I pointed out the roach carcasses I was seeing all over the apartment, he shrugged his shoulders and said “yes, there are roaches.” I asked how much the broker fee was, and he said 12% of the annual rent, which came out to over $3,000. This is absolutely absurd. These rule changes would add much need transparency and fairness to the rental process.

  Landlords and their lobbying groups often state that “the broker fees which were previously being paid by the tenant will simply get incorporated into the rent.” This is faulty logic, because in the worst case scenario, *tenants will still be paying the same amount of money*. However, this doesn’t happen in other cities in which exorbitant, tenant-paid broker fees are not a standard practice. Why should it be the case here in New York?

  If *some* landlords try to raise the price of rent over $3,000 (for example) suddenly year-over-year, it’s true that we cannot stop them. However, there is a reason rent stabilization exists – to protect tenants from just this situation. The Rent Guidelines Board should continue to do its job and keep the rent increases on rent stabilized units *as stable and low as possible*, and this “problem” will solve itself.

  In short, these regulations going through would be a godsend for the average NYC resident like myself. Thank you for your time.

  Comment added April 23, 2025 11:23am

• S. A.

  Good idea. If the landlord hires these realtors then the landlord should pay the fee.

  Comment added May 2, 2025 1:11pm

• Carl Hum

  Please see the attached comment.

  Comment attachment
  REBNY-Comment-on-Proposed-FARE-Act-Rule-5.12.25.pdf

  Comment added May 13, 2025 10:09pm

• Anani Fleur

  I no longer see the fines for when a landlord posts a listing it is assumed the landlord gave permission to post the listing and the landlord hired the agent. My question is this: if the tenant hires the agent, the agent calls the landlord to ask if there are units available, then the agent posts the landlord’s listing to get more clients, is this a violation? The clients hire the agent, the landlord did not hire the agent. The landlord posts their own listings and shows the apt to any person who asks the landlord directly and to any agent and their client who asks the landlord to see the apt. Are agents now allowed to post listings for clients to contact the agents without the landlord or agent being fined? The landlord posts their own listings. Many times the agents scarf up the listing the landlord posted or makes listings with fake addresses using the landlord’s pictures from the landlord’s listings.

  Comment added May 14, 2025 12:21pm

• Anani Fleur

  There are two different scenarios involved. Both need to be considered fairly. Scenario 1.) In some cases a landlord will require potential tenants to go through a specific broker or will hire an exclusive broker. In this case the broker/agent posts the listings and it is fair for the landlord to pay the fee. Most likely, this will result in rent increases to cover the cost, but that is how it is. Added expenses result in increased rents. Landlords need to cover the costs of maintaining buildings and following regulations. More regulations means more costs, which means higher rents. Scenario 2.) However, many landlords do not hire a broker or use a specific or exclusive broker. Potential tenants can contact the landlord directly or a broker/agent can bring their clients. In these cases, the landlord posts the listings and sometimes the broker/agent also posts listings to pull in clients. For this case, since the client hired the broker, the broker shows the client many possible apts, the client should pay the fees. The landlord and broker/agent should not be held liable if the broker/agent also posts the listing – if the broker/agent doesn’t post a listing, how would they bring in clients? So I propose an amendment to the “rebuttable assumption the landlord hired a broker if the broker posts a listing” clause such that if the landlord posts the listing first and a broker/agent posts a duplicate listing after the landlord posts their listing, the landlord is not presumed to have hired the broker. There is no point in dragging down the courts with “rebuttable assumptions”. Also, please make a form for landlords to have brokers/agents sign that clearly specifies that the tenant hired the broker/agent and the landlord did not hire the broker/agent. Landlords who do not hire brokers/agents need legal protections.

  Comment added May 14, 2025 12:49pm