Written by Scott M. Smiler and Michelle P. Quinn, Partners at Gallet Dreyer & Berkey, LLP.

If you’ve been watching the news recently, you’ve undoubtedly seen the havoc caused by squatters claiming their lawful rights to remain in place. This has become a national phenomenon and has taken center stage in New York in the past several months.

The squatter stories run the gambit. A property owner in Flushing was arrested for changing the locks on a vacant house she owned after she found two men camping out inside. A family in Douglaston claimed a squatter living in their newly purchased $2 million home refused to leave. Police in Rockaway arrested an alleged squatter in a house full of malnourished animals and illegal drugs. A squatter in Dyker Heights allegedly started a fire causing $900,000 in damage. Most troubling, a woman was murdered in Kips Bay after walking in on what police describe as a pair of teen squatters who had been staying in her late mother’s vacant condo.

An “influencer” brazenly posted a video instructing people on just how to become a squatter which has only exacerbated the situation. But who exactly is a squatter?

What Is Squatting?

Generally speaking, squatting is when an individual moves into a property without the property owner’s knowledge or consent, and refuses to leave. A squatter is not a roommate, house guest, or anyone else who initially had the property owner’s or legal tenant’s permission to occupy the premises, even if that permission is later revoked. Those individuals are considered licensees who are entitled to the formal eviction process before being required to vacate. A squatter never had the property owner’s permission.

While property owners have long struggled with the presence of unauthorized occupants, their seeming increased presence and recent notoriety may be due to the ongoing extensive delays in housing court in New York City. Knowing it will take months, if not years, before they are forced to leave, squatters have “gamed the system” by trolling for abandoned properties, entering, and staying for more than 30 days. When unsuspecting property owners attempt to remove these individuals, the police are often called but it is the rightful property owner who is led away in handcuffs leaving the squatters in place and their occupancy undisturbed.

The Legal Process

For decades the law provided that anyone who has occupied a premises for more than 30 days can only be removed after the property owner brings a summary proceeding and obtains a warrant of eviction. Prior to April 20, 2024, that included squatters, requiring landlords and property owners to endure the long, expensive, and challenging process to remove them. In essence, squatters were afforded the same due process as lawful tenants.

With the extensive backlog of cases in housing court, a property owner could potentially wait a year or more to remove an individual who never had any right to be there in the first place. Property owners not only lose time, but also lose rental income and the ability to sell their property. They also incur attorneys’ fees and the cost of repairs for damage caused by the squatters.

Until a court ruled in the property owner’s favor, the property owner could not change the locks to their home, cut-off the utilities to their home, remove the squatters’ belongings or physically remove the squatters themselves. Unfortunately, the property owner was at the mercy of the court system, which can take one to two years before a resolution is reached. Eventually, the squatter would be evicted, unless they could demonstrate that they had a legal right to occupy the premises (e.g. pursuant to a lease or other permission), which was unlikely.

Recent Developments

Lawmakers recently stepped up to address the situation. Senate Bill S8867, introduced by New York State Senator Mario Mattera, sought to add an “expedient method whereby a property owner, by the mere submission of a sworn complaint to a police officer attesting to certain facts, can immediately cause a squatter or other unauthorized person to be evicted from residential real property by a police officer without court intervention.”

Assembly Bill A6894, sponsored by New York State Representative Jake Blumencranz, similarly sought to amend the definition of a tenant to exclude squatters, thereby making squatting a criminal offense—reclassifying it as criminal trespassing in the third degree, and sought to extend the time period for tenancy rights to accrue from 30 days to 45 days of possession.

In late April, Governor Kathy Hochul signed a portion of the New York State budget that changed the way tenants are defined in state law and made it clear that squatters are not tenants, and thus, excluded from tenant protections under state law. The new law took effect immediately.

The legislature’s revision of the definition of “tenant” addressed the unintended inclusion of squatters. As amended, New York Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law Section 711 now makes it clear that “a tenant shall not include a squatter” and defines a squatter as “a person who enters onto or intrudes upon real property without the permission of the person entitled to possession, and continues to occupy the property without title, right or permission of the owner or owner’s agent or a person entitled to possession.”

In a bill proposed by the New York City Council in mid-May 2024, New York City squatters would be tracked and the properties they take over would be listed in an online database and reported quarterly by the NYPD and other city agencies.

Lawmakers say these changes will make it easier for police to intervene in squatting cases instead of having to take them to housing court, and shift the burden to the occupant to demonstrate that they are entitled to be in the property. Someone removed from a property who believes it was done so improperly will still be able to challenge their removal in court, but not while still residing in the property in which they were allegedly squatting. Whether and when the change in the meaning of the word “tenant” will impact the conduct of squatters, property owners, or the police remains to be seen.

Conclusion

These seemingly minor changes to the law will have a major impact on an owner’s ability to combat the increased presence of squatters, and the squatter’s ability to stymie and obstruct lawful owners from possession of their properties. While the change in the law is encouraging and certainly a victory for landlords, it will take some time to see how the police and courts react to the changes.