Cal. Civ. Code § 796-M

Defense of warranty of habitability inapplicable

In Force
Verified 9/13/2026 · Next check 9/20/2026
effective 6/16/2023New YorkTenant Defenses

Operative Text

Cal. Civ. Code § 796-M
  § 796-m. 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
or her duties in a reasonable manner.
Source: Legislative text reproduced verbatim
Plain English

Under N.Y. Real Prop. Acts & Proc. Law § 796-M, 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 against rent claims is generally unavailable during that administration period. The rationale is that the administrator—not the original landlord—is responsible for maintaining the property. However, if a court finds that the administrator's own failure to perform duties reasonably caused the conditions at issue, the warranty-of-habitability defense can still be raised against the administrator's rent proceeding.

Written by anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.6 · Reviewed on September 13, 2026

Plain English — not legal advice.

For Property Managers

Property owners subject to an Article 7-A administration under N.Y. Real Prop. Acts & Proc. Law § 796-M should understand that once a court-appointed administrator takes over, the administrator—not the owner—bears primary responsibility for property conditions during that period. Compliant operators typically maintain records documenting the timeline of any court orders or judgments so that the scope and duration of the administration is clearly established. This distinction matters because rent accruing during the administration period is generally collected by the administrator, and habitability defenses are directed at the administrator's conduct rather than the owner's.

General guidance for property managers — not legal advice for your specific situation. Consult an attorney for advice on your case.

For Tenants

Under N.Y. Real Prop. Acts & Proc. Law § 796-M, tenants living in a property under Article 7-A administration generally cannot use the warranty-of-habitability defense to contest rent sought by the court-appointed administrator, unless the poor conditions were caused by the administrator's own failure to act reasonably. Tenants who believe an administrator has neglected their duties may have grounds to raise this exception in a rent proceeding, and documenting conditions and communicating complaints in writing can help establish that record. Tenant-rights organizations and legal aid services can help residents understand how this provision interacts with their broader rights under Article 7-A.

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

Current
Jun 16, 2023
Click on timeline segments to view historical versions.

References Out

No outbound references recorded yet for this provision.

References In

No inbound references recorded yet for this provision.

Related Rules

§ 261
Recovery of possession of certain non-complying premises restricted during emergency period
§ 8A
Rent withholding; grounds; amount claimed; presumptions and burden of proof; procedures
§ 755
Stay of proceeding or action for rent upon failure to make repairs

Source Information

Snapshot SHA:
Fetched:Sep 13, 2026, 06:33 PM UTC