(ALBANY, NY) —ECBAWM filed an amicus brief on behalf of five leading fair housing organizations — CNY Fair Housing, Fair Housing Justice Center, Housing Opportunities Made Equal, Long Island Housing Services, and Westchester Residential Opportunities — urging the court to overturn a lower court ruling that struck down key provisions of New York’s Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) prohibiting source of income discrimination.

The groups warn that the trial court’s decision, if allowed to stand, would dismantle one of New York State’s most important protections for tenants who rely on rental assistance programs, jeopardizing housing stability for tens of thousands of New Yorkers and worsening the statewide homelessness crisis.

The case, People v. Commons West, LLC, et al., began when New York Attorney General Letitia James sued Ithaca landlord Jason H. Fane and his affiliated companies for allegedly refusing to rent to tenants with a Section 8 or Housing Choice Voucher (HCV). In 2023, a Tompkins County State Supreme judge dismissed the case, holding that the NYSHRL is “facially unconstitutional” because landlords who rent to voucher holders might be required to allow inspections the court deemed warrantless.

But landlords — including the one at the center of this case — have not pointed to any example of this ever happening. Their challenge rests on hypothetical scenarios that have not occurred and are unlikely to occur, making it premature for any court to entertain claims of unconstitutionality when there is no actual threat of warrantless inspections by any government agency. “Landlords have no constitutional right to discriminate against tenants who rely on rental assistance,” said Diane L. Houk, Partner at ECBAWM. “The state Human Rights Law is clear and constitutional, and housing voucher programs already follow Fourth Amendment safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures every day across the state. The trial court’s misinterpretation of both the statute and the Constitution leaves thousands of New Yorkers at the mercy of discriminatory landlords. We urge the court to reverse this deeply flawed decision, one unrooted in existing law.”