Cal. Civ. Code § 783
Defense of warranty of habitability inapplicable
Operative Text
§ 783. Defense of warranty of habitability inapplicable. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in any proceeding for the payment of rent commenced by an administrator appointed pursuant to this article, the provisions of section two hundred thirty-five-b of the real property law pertaining to the warranty of habitability shall not be a defense to such a proceeding for rent which accrues during the period of time that a judgment or an order pursuant to this article is in effect, unless the court determines that the conditions upon which such defense is based were caused by the failure of such administrator to perform his duties in a reasonable manner.
Under N.Y. Real Prop. Acts & Proc. Law § 783, when a court-appointed administrator is managing a property under an Article 7-A order or judgment, the usual warranty-of-habitability defense that tenants can raise in rent proceedings is generally unavailable against that administrator. The rationale is that the administrator has stepped in specifically to correct housing conditions, so rent that accrues during the administration period is treated differently than rent owed to a private landlord. There is one exception: if a court finds that the administrator's own failure to perform duties reasonably caused the conditions at issue, the habitability defense can still apply.
Plain English — not legal advice.
Property owners and managers should be aware that N.Y. Real Prop. Acts & Proc. Law § 783 operates within the Article 7-A administration framework, which is triggered when a court appoints an administrator to take over a building's management. Once such an appointment is in effect, a compliant operator in the administrator role generally documents all maintenance efforts and expenditures to demonstrate that duties are being performed reasonably, since the one circumstance that revives the habitability defense is an administrator's own unreasonable failure to act. Owners whose buildings are subject to an Article 7-A order should understand how this provision interacts with their ongoing obligations and any rent-collection rights that may be affected.
General guidance for property managers — not legal advice for your specific situation. Consult an attorney for advice on your case.
N.Y. Real Prop. Acts & Proc. Law § 783 affects the defenses available to tenants when rent is sought by a court-appointed Article 7-A administrator rather than a private landlord. During the period an administration order is in effect, tenants generally cannot use the warranty-of-habitability defense to contest rent owed to the administrator, unless a court determines the administrator's own unreasonable conduct caused the conditions complained of. Tenants who believe an administrator has failed to perform duties reasonably may wish to raise that issue in the rent proceeding itself, consult a tenant-rights organization familiar with Article 7-A proceedings, or contact a local rent board or housing court resource for guidance on how § 783's exception might apply.
General guidance for tenants — not legal advice for your specific situation. Consult a tenant-rights organization or attorney for advice on your case.
Generated September 13, 2026 — auto-generated, not yet human-reviewed. See /transparency for methodology.
Effective Timeline
References Out
No outbound references recorded yet for this provision.
References In
No inbound references recorded yet for this provision.