N.Y.C. Admin. Code tit. 8, ch. 1 § 8-130
Construction (New York City Human Rights Law)
Operative Text
a. The provisions of this title shall be construed liberally for the accomplishment of the uniquely broad and remedial purposes thereof, regardless of whether federal or New York state civil and human rights laws, including those laws with provisions worded comparably to provisions of this title, have been so construed. b. Exceptions to and exemptions from the provisions of this title shall be construed narrowly in order to maximize deterrence of discriminatory conduct. c. Cases that have correctly understood and analyzed the liberal construction requirement of subdivision a of this section and that have developed legal doctrines accordingly that reflect the broad and remedial purposes of this title include Albunio v. City of New York , 16 N.Y.3d 472 (2011), Bennett v. Health Management Systems, Inc. , 92 A.D.3d 29 (1st Dep't 2011), and the majority opinion in Williams v. New York City Housing Authority , 61 A.D.3d 62 (1st Dep't 2009). (Am. L.L. 2016/035, 3/28/2016, eff. 3/28/2016) Editor's note: For related unconsolidated provisions, see Appendix A at L.L. 1991/039 , L.L. 2005/085 , and L.L. 2016/035 .
N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8-101 & 8-130 establishes interpretive rules for New York City's Human Rights Law. Courts and agencies are directed to read the law's protections broadly, in service of its remedial anti-discrimination goals, even if comparable state or federal civil rights laws have been interpreted more narrowly. Conversely, any exceptions or exemptions carved out of those protections are to be read as narrowly as possible to maximize the law's deterrent effect against discriminatory conduct.
Plain English — not legal advice.
Under N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8-101 & 8-130, property owners and managers should understand that the City's Human Rights Law is intentionally interpreted more expansively than its state or federal counterparts. Compliant operators generally err on the side of broader inclusion when assessing their obligations, rather than relying on exemptions or exceptions that courts are instructed to read narrowly. Familiarity with the cases cited in subdivision (c)—such as Albunio v. City of New York and Bennett v. Health Management Systems—can help operators understand how courts have applied this liberal construction standard in practice.
General guidance for property managers — not legal advice for your specific situation. Consult an attorney for advice on your case.
N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8-101 & 8-130 is significant for tenants because it instructs courts and agencies to interpret the City's Human Rights Law protections as broadly as possible, which can be relevant when raising a discrimination claim or defense in a housing matter. Any exemptions a landlord might invoke are subject to narrow construction, meaning they are not easily expanded beyond their explicit terms. Tenants who believe their rights under the City's Human Rights Law have been violated may consider filing a complaint with the New York City Commission on Human Rights or consulting a tenant-rights organization to understand available enforcement paths.
General guidance for tenants — not legal advice for your specific situation. Consult a tenant-rights organization or attorney for advice on your case.
Generated October 14, 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.