Court finds Albany’s Good Cause Eviction Law to be invalid

Adrian Caramihai • February 15, 2023

The Good Cause Eviction law of the City of Albany (Local Law F of 2021) was in direct conflict with and preempted by New York State law, as ruled by the Supreme Court of Albany County. The plaintiffs argued that the law was attempting to regulate rental rates and tenant evictions at the local level, which was not allowed by State law. The court found that Local Law F was in direct conflict with New York State's Real Property Law (RPL) and Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL). The court emphasized that the RPAPL did not require a landlord to show "good cause" to evict a tenant after a lease had expired. The court also stated that Local Law F added "good cause" requirements that did not exist under New York State law and restricted a landlord's right to evict a tenant even when there was no written lease. The court also found that the law was in direct conflict with RPL Section 228, which permitted a landlord to end a month-to-month tenancy on 30 days' notice to the tenant without demonstrating good cause. Finally, the court mentioned that Section 226-c allowed a landlord to raise rents by 5 percent or more provided that the tenant was given adequate written notice at the time of renewal for those with written leases and upon sufficient notice for those under month-to-month tenancies.

The court ultimately held that since Sections 30-327 and 30-328 of Local Law F “altered substantive provisions and procedures of existing state law by imposing limitations and prerequisites to the commencement of an eviction proceeding that are not required under state law,” they were deemed null and void. The court further held that since the remaining provisions of Local Law F were enacted solely to support Sections 30-327 and 30-328, the

entire law was held to be invalid.

By Adrian Caramihai February 6, 2026
Key Takeaways: Local Law 97 & Small Residential Buildings (Article 321) • Most 2–4 family properties in NYC are NOT subject to Local Law 97 • Buildings under 25,000 square feet are exempt from emissions caps, penalties, and reporting • Article 321 explicitly excludes small residential buildings from compliance requirements • No carbon limits, benchmarking, or annual filings apply to these properties • Owners of 2–4 family homes do not need to retrofit to meet Local Law 97 • “Prescriptive Energy Conservation Measures” are not mandatory for exempt buildings • Measures like pipe insulation or heat timers are optional, not legally required • The law primarily targets large apartment buildings and commercial properties • Small landlords face no fines now or in future compliance periods • Energy upgrades may still reduce operating costs, but are voluntary • Local Law 97 is often misunderstood because most coverage focuses on skyscrapers • For typical 2–4 family owners, Local Law 97 is a non-issue from a legal standpoint ________________________________________ Understanding Local Law 97 Beyond the Headlines Local Law 97 was enacted to reduce carbon emissions from New York City’s largest buildings, which account for the majority of energy use citywide. As a result, most media coverage focuses on high-rise apartments and commercial towers—leaving small property owners confused about whether the law applies to them. For owners of 2–4 family homes, the answer is usually simple: it doesn’t. Under Article 321, residential buildings under 25,000 square feet are exempt from Local Law 97’s emissions limits, reporting obligations, and financial penalties. This exemption covers the vast majority of 2–4 family properties in NYC. ________________________________________ What Are “Prescriptive Energy Conservation Measures”? Prescriptive Energy Conservation Measures are a compliance option for covered buildings, allowing them to meet the law through basic energy upgrades instead of calculating emissions. Common examples include: • Insulating exposed hot water or steam pipes • Installing boiler heat timers or outdoor temperature controls • Using LED lighting and occupancy sensors in common areas • Implementing temperature setbacks during low-use hours These measures are often mentioned in Local Law 97 discussions—but they are not requirements for exempt buildings. ________________________________________ Do 2–4 Family Owners Need to Install These Measures? No. If your building is under 25,000 square feet, these upgrades are not required, not inspected, and not reported to the city. Some owners still choose to install them to reduce fuel costs or improve comfort, but that decision is purely optional. ________________________________________ Bottom Line for Small Property Owners Local Law 97 was not designed with small residential landlords in mind. For most 2–4 family properties, it creates no legal obligations, no penalties, and no compliance burden. Understanding this distinction can save owners unnecessary stress—and unnecessary spending.
By Jarred Traub February 2, 2024
Property management can be a complicated song and dance which always requires a fine attention to detail. One facet that does not receive...
By Jarred Traub January 31, 2024
Creating and maintaining a proper budget is critical for success when managing a property. Having a well-thought-out budget provides you...
By Jarred Traub January 25, 2024
Being proactive and having the right maintenance plan in place can significantly reduce long term expenses.
By Jarred Traub January 18, 2024
Owning and managing rental properties can be a lucrative venture but can also come with its own set of challenges. It can be commonplace...
By Adrian Caramihai February 19, 2023
The number of new Manhattan condominiums sold in January declined to match the average monthly sales between 2015 and 2020. Although...
By Adrian Caramihai February 15, 2023
The NYC Renewal Lease Form (RTP-8) has been updated by DHCR to include the guidelines specified in Rent Guidelines Board Order #54. The...