Security Deposit Vouchers Are a "Source of Income" Under NYC Law

Prospective tenant applied for an apartment from landlord, who rejected her application because she couldn't pay a cash security deposit. Tenant claimed that she had a security deposit voucher from HRA. Claiming that the city tried to force it to accept the voucher, landlord sued the city and sought a ruling that the "source of income" provisions of NYC's Human Rights Law didn't apply to HRA security vouchers. The city asked the court to dismiss the case. The court ruled for the city, finding that the HRA security voucher was a lawful source of income.

Landlord appealed and lost. HRA security deposit vouchers were a "lawful source of income" under the NYC Human Rights Law, and therefore were covered by the Human Rights Law prohibition against discrimination by a landlord against a prospective tenant. The voucher program also didn't violate Social Services Law Section 143-c. The security voucher program also didn't violate the Urstadt Law, because it had no impact on expanding buildings subject to rent stabilization or expanding regulation under the rent laws.

Estates NY Real Estate Servs. LLC v. City of New York: Index No. 155991/18, 11012, 2020 NY Slip Op 03093 (App. Div. 1 Dept.; 5/28/20; Gische, JP, Kapnick, Webber, Moulton, JJ)