Assembly approves bill letting tenants install certain appliances if they meet code and have written consent

The Assembly passed legislation to restrict landlords from denying residential tenants the right to install certain appliances and fixtures, so long as the items comply with applicable building codes and the tenant first obtains written consent from the landlord.

Sponsor Miss Rosenthal said the measure (Assembly No. 1865-A, calendar 88) would "prohibit a landlord from restricting a residential tenant from installing appliances or fixtures if they comply with applicable building codes, and the tenant has sought and obtained written consent from the landlord." The bill passed the Assembly by a recorded tally of "Ayes, 95; Nos, 50." It takes effect immediately under the bill's language.

Supporters framed the bill as a narrow consumer-protection measure for tenants who want to replace poorly functioning or inefficient appliances without creating additional landlord expense. Miss Rosenthal described typical examples: sometimes a tenantwhose refrigerator is failing would prefer to buy a replacement that is more energy efficient or better suited to their needs and pay for installation rather than wait for a landlord replacement.

Opponents, led in debate by members representing property-owner interests, warned the bill could impose costs and risks on landlords and building infrastructure. Representative objections included the potential for electrical load issues in older housing stock, plumbing alterations, and disputes over who must store or restore a landlord's original appliance when a tenant departs. One critic summarized the concern: "It boils down to the ability of a property owner to have control over their own property." (Mister Fitzpatrick)

Floor exchanges clarified scope and limits written into the bill. The statutory definition of "appliances or fixtures" in the bill is limited to a specific list: refrigerator, freezer, range (including cooktop or oven), built-in microwave oven, sink, faucet or shower head. The bill requires tenants to seek written consent from the landlord before installation and to either restore the unit to its prior condition at lease end or leave the tenant-installed item in place at no cost to the landlord.

Members questioned additional operational details not spelled out in the text: whether installers must be licensed or insured, who stores the landlord's removed appliance during the tenancy, and how landlords would be made whole if a tenant-installed item fails or causes damage. Sponsor Rosenthal said routine practicalities are often worked out between landlords and tenants and that the bill was intentionally narrow to encourage negotiation while protecting tenants who face poor or inefficient appliances.

Representative Bologna, explaining his negative vote, expressed skepticism the bill offered adequate protections for owners and raised examples such as water usage and building operations where tenant choices could create landlord costs. He called the bill "1 of the most frustrating bills" he had seen on the floor.

The Assembly recorded the final vote as Ayes 95, Nos 50. The bill's language provides for written consent, adherence to building code and a tenant responsibility to restore or leave the installed appliance at lease termination. The floor debate makes clear that members expect local implementation questionsinstallers' insurance, storage arrangements, and dispute resolutionto be resolved in practice or in future clarifying legislation.

Ending: With passage, tenants who meet the statutory conditions may install the enumerated appliances or fixtures with written landlord consent and building-code compliance; landlords retain the ability to deny installations that violate code or other legal provisions, while broader disputes over storage, liability and insurance remain topics for follow-up.