So-called “administration charges.” Listed flats already rented. Off-market exclusives dangled like bait.
These are amongst what some apartment-seekers noticed as they looked for leases within the wake of the 2025 FARE Act, which in nearly all instances bans brokers from charging charges to tenants. And people practices all violate that legislation, the town company tasked with enforcement alleges.
The FARE Act, which went into impact in June 2025, specifies that if a dealer publishes a list for a rental property, that dealer is to be paid by the owner. The legislation aimed to finish the follow, lengthy customary in New York Metropolis, of tenants shelling out for brokers they by no means employed with the intention to safe an house within the metropolis’s aggressive rental market.
Tons of of pages of summonses and supporting proof issued by the Division of Client and Employee Safety between June 2025 and April 2026 supply a glimpse at how brokers are breaking the legislation or working in a authorized grey space, in line with the company implementing the ban.
The paperwork, which The Metropolis Reporter obtained via a Freedom of Data Legislation request, embrace some clear-cut instances the place house listings immediately ask for dealer charges, however not all had been as simple. Some brokers disguised the charges by different names, or coaxed tenants into paying charges in alternate for preferential consideration. Others provided different flats, then characterised them as “off-market” listings that required a payment.
Because the legislation took impact via mid-October, New Yorkers have filed greater than 2,500 dealer fee-related complaints and queries to DCWP, although most lack sufficient data for the company to behave upon, it mentioned. It issued 91 summonses alleging 130 violations, together with 55 violations that resulted in $60,000 in penalties. The company additionally secured greater than $24,000 in charges paid again to tenants.
The Workplace of Administrative Trials and Hearings adjudicates FARE Act instances.
DCWP Commissioner Sam Levine mentioned the FARE Act has helped crack down on dealer charges, and that his workplace has seen a decline in complaints in latest months.
“Our personal monitoring of StreetEasy and the opposite platforms suggests extra landlords are complying with the legislation, and we’ve been, I feel, aggressive in enforcement,” Levine mentioned, including that the company has, for the primary time, introduced in workers particularly centered on landlord-tenant points.
Charges Promising Candidates an Edge: Conditioning
Some candidates desperate to lock down flats within the metropolis’s tight housing market discovered guarantees of choice and precedence in alternate for dealer charges. However DCWP charged these brokers with violating the FARE Act clause that claims, “No particular person shall situation the rental of residential actual property on a tenant partaking any agent” — also called “conditioning.”
In a single occasion, two ladies collectively utilized to 2 flats, together with one in Crown Heights with a balcony. “We’re questioning if there may be any means so that you can give us a way of our odds,” one would-be tenant mentioned in an e mail to the dealer, Diana Belorusets. “If there’s a likelihood of our utility … getting accepted, then we’re comfortable to carry off and cross our fingers (and toes!) for this unit.”
Throughout a subsequent cellphone name Belorusets mentioned paying a dealer payment would enhance the possibilities of the candidates getting the house, in line with the summons. The subsequent day, she prevented mentioning the payment, emailing, “As per our dialogue yesterday, it looks like you’re not involved in that concept which is okay. However I’ve different candidates who’re so I’ll let you understand.”
Belorusets, who didn’t reply to a request for remark, was present in violation of the FARE Act and needed to pay $1,125 as a penalty.
DCWP additionally alleged unlawful conditioning occurred in two separate cases when tenants in buildings managed by Coney Realty and Administration reached out so as to add new roommates to their leases. Dianne Barwise, who labored on the firm however left in December, instructed one family that the brand new roommate must undergo the usual utility course of via “our dealer” and pay a payment. (Neither Barwise nor Coney responded to requests for remark.)
Within the different occasion, tenant Aleia Jacobs instructed The Metropolis Reporter that her new roommate in Hell’s Kitchen selected to pay the $1,000 lease modification payment, “simply to get it over with.” However Jacobs, 26, felt one thing was fishy, regardless of Barwise doubling down. She instructed Jacobs, “the FARE Act doesn’t apply” as a result of the lease modification was “at [Jacobs’] request,” the summons file mentioned.
In Jacobs’ case, nobody from Coney Realty confirmed as much as an August 2025 listening to, so the corporate was present in violation by default. The corporate motioned for a brand new listening to and claimed it didn’t obtain the summons, however OATH denied the movement. The second case was sustained, with Coney present in violation of the FARE Act.
Many brokers who’re hit with summonses will not be showing at hearings to answer them. Of the greater than 70 summonses The Metropolis Reporter reviewed with verifiable outcomes, in over half the instances, brokers had been discovered to be at fault as a result of they didn’t seem.
In a number of of the no-appearance instances, brokers mentioned they by no means knew in regards to the summonses till The Metropolis Reporter inquired about them.
“We serve brokers on the deal with the place they’re licensed,” Levine mentioned. “If there was any subject in service, they’ll have a chance to contest it.”
Dealer Charge by Any Different Title
DCWP additionally drew a pink line at charges creatively renamed.
One StreetEasy advert for a renovated two-bedroom house in Woodside included a “finders payment” equal to at least one month’s lease of $2,350. One other dealer included a one-month “actual property payment” on a Craigslist advert. Elsewhere, brokers have described required charges as “for transfer in and administration providers,” “one-time administration charges,” and for refurbishing the house earlier than move-in.
In all instances, DCWP mentioned these constituted disguised dealer charges.
In a number of instances, brokers had been charged a separate positive for not “clearly and conspicuously” disclosing charges as small as $25, like these for background checks or credit score experiences. The FARE Act stipulates that every one charges should be clearly denoted in house listings.
‘Off-Market’ Listings, and Bait and Change
Because the begin of the FARE Act, tenants have reported a proliferation of “off-market” choices — these that don’t seem on websites like StreetEasy, however that brokers promise to provide entry to for a payment. However when a dealer dangles the provision of those hidden listings it’s a type of conditioning, DCWP dominated in a number of summonses.
In a single case, a tenant reached out to dealer Stated Bennani a couple of one-bedroom house in Washington Heights. Bennani in a textual content indicated the house had been rented however had a brand new one in the identical constructing. “It’s 3 occasions higher,” he wrote. “Has a payment. Off market apt.”
The tenant texted, “I’ll go. Bait and change is a nasty tactic.”
Stated wrote again, “I provided [and] you mentioned no. I’m really contemplating you for a unbelievable lease stabilized off market itemizing. Out of greater than 100 inquiries I obtained. Apt is value a straightforward $3000. It’s best to say thank u.”
When requested in regards to the summons, Bennani instructed The Metropolis Reporter he had “no information about this.” After being emailed the summons and evidentiary paperwork, he stopped responding to emails or returning calls. OATH information exhibits Bennani was discovered to be in violation by default as a result of he didn’t present as much as a listening to.
Levine, the commissioner, characterised the off-market listings as “shenanigans” designed to evade the FARE Act.
“These backdoor makes an attempt to impose dealer charges on tenants, I feel, are actually unlucky,” Levine mentioned. “I feel the state — which has expressed lots of dedication to creating housing extra inexpensive — can do one thing very concrete about this by requiring public listings and insisting that brokers select a facet,” between representing tenants or landlords.
DCWP additionally took subject with dealer Marc Shagalow texting tenants about “off-market” items in Crown Heights and Williamsburg.
“Simply obtained this off market itemizing for a reasonably unbelievable worth!” Shagalow texted a possible tenant. The renter expressed curiosity, and Shagalow knowledgeable them, “being that that is off market there might be a dealer payment.”
“And who could be paying that? I didn’t rent a dealer,” the tenant replied. Later, the identical tenant filed a grievance with DCWP.
Shagalow declined to touch upon that particular case — on which OATH hasn’t but decided — however mentioned he wouldn’t bait tenants with pretend listings.
“There are brokers on the market who’re itemizing flats, and the house just isn’t for lease, after which they are saying, ‘Oh, I simply rented this, however I’ve this,’” Shagalow mentioned. “I personally wouldn’t ever do one thing like that as a result of I don’t suppose it’s moral.”
The FARE Act, as DCWP said in summonses, lets brokers promote providers, however doesn’t allow them to “situation the provision of particular or identifiable residential rental property stock on a tenant hiring and paying a dealer.”
Grey Areas as Brokers Cope With Change
At occasions, brokers sprung charges onto tenants on the final minute, retroactively justified via casual texts, emails and recollections of cellphone calls. When a tenant notified dealer Heather Fiumano and her brokerage agency, Arché Nest, that he’d despatched in his safety deposit, Arché Nest responded, “thanks! It will now function your brokers payment.” The tenant responded by citing the FARE Act, notifying the brokerage that regardless of his appreciation for Fiumano, it was the owner’s accountability to compensate the dealer.
In an extended reply to the tenant, Arché Nest’s CEO Jadine Walters responded {that a} “verbal settlement” was remodeled a cellphone name between Fiumano and the tenant, and, within the absence of a written settlement, argued that “the messages of appreciation you despatched Heather after the lease was finalized,” revealed the character of their “working relationship.”
“Texts reminiscent of ‘Ur a friggin hero, can’t inform you how a lot I respect you going out to bat for us,’ and ‘Glad u lastly get some bread as properly you’ve been serving to us for therefore lengthy’,” affirm that you simply acknowledged Heather’s dedication and agreed compensation was each earned and deserved,” Walters wrote.
The tenant requested for a partial refund of half the payment, warning they’d in any other case file a FARE Act summons. Walters and Fiumano by no means responded.
Walters indicated she would remark for this story on behalf of Fiumano, however The Metropolis Reporter by no means heard again. OATH discovered Fiumano in violation of the FARE Act by default, as she didn’t seem for her listening to.
Different brokers had been up entrance in regards to the limits of what they thought they might do below the brand new legislation, however nonetheless ran afoul of it.
A type of instances concerned a Craigslist put up by Brooklyn Heights Actual Property (BHRE) for 3 rent-stabilized flats out there that the agency knew of “due to our long-standing relationships with native homeowners and administration firms.” However, the put up defined, “as a result of FARE Act, we aren’t permitted to promote or publicly market these items” whereas charging a dealer payment. As an alternative BHRE used the Craigslist put up to solicit tenants to rent them for unique entry to items unavailable on-line. Within the summons, DCWP mentioned it was clear would-be tenants couldn’t entry the flats with out hiring a dealer.
“We didn’t know we had been violating any legislation or something,” BHRE managing accomplice Lior Cohen instructed The Metropolis Reporter. “We marketed a basic advert on Craigslist that should you’re on the lookout for an house … and you can’t discover something, you might have the choice to rent BHRE as your agent.”
Whereas Cohen mentioned his brokerage solely meant to promote its providers via the put up, DCWP drew the road on the specificity of the itemizing, which certified it as an house itemizing within the company’s eyes.
“As soon as we obtained the summons, we clearly took all of the advertisements out and we stopped doing it,” Cohen mentioned. The case continues to be pending.
In one other case, a proactive tenant reached out to dealer Gregory Bartlett about an previous StreetEasy itemizing for an house in a brownstone on the sting of Fort Greene Park, what she referred to as her “dream location.” The tenant, Kendra Norfleet, 27, questioned if the unit — or an identical one — would possibly as soon as once more come to market.
Bartlett, whom The Metropolis Reporter was unable to achieve via calls and emails, then requested if Norfleet would pay a dealer payment to pay for his actual property firm’s service discovering an house for her. She wrote again invoking the FARE Act and clarified that she was not hiring him to seek out an house “since I already did that half,” with a laugh-crying emoji.
A few week later, Bartlett listed the house on-line and scheduled an open home by appointment. When Norfleet tried to schedule an appointment, Bartlett mentioned the open home had “crammed up.”
Norfleet wrote again to say it appeared she was “being punished” for not working with the dealer and suspected she was “excluded from the viewing course of” in consequence.
Norfleet by no means obtained that house.
“They might not present it to me after I identified that I didn’t rent them and wouldn’t be paying them a dealer’s payment,” she instructed The Metropolis Reporter. “It actually pissed me off.”
After Norfleet filed a grievance to DCWP, Bartlett was present in violation by default after not showing.
The Way forward for FARE
Levine at DCWP sees implementing the FARE Act as solely the start to assist carry New York Metropolis consistent with different cities the place apartment-seekers will not be hit with charges for brokers they didn’t rent.
However the sorts of FARE Act violations up to now level to the place he’s set his sights for additional motion. He mentioned he needs the state to ban brokers to work for each tenants and landlords, who’ve “fully misaligned pursuits and are on reverse sides of a transaction.”
He additionally mentioned he helps a invoice state lawmakers handed that may require all listings be posted publicly.
“The FARE Act was designed to deal with one downside, which is dealer charges, and the notion that New Yorkers want to decide on between paying dealer charges and having aggressive open markets for housing,” Levine mentioned. “That’s a false selection.”
Levine additionally needs the state to boost the stakes for repeat-offenders of the FARE Act: “The state ought to severely contemplate whether or not it ought to proceed to grant licenses to brokers who repeatedly violate the legislation.”
