Rochester, N.Y., Code of Ordinances ch. 90 § 90-63
Prohibition of retaliatory action (Rochester NY Property Code)
Operative Text
A. It is unlawful for an owner, or any person acting on his or her behalf, to take any retaliatory action toward a tenant who reports a suspected lead-based paint hazard to the owner or to the City. Retaliatory actions include but are not limited to any actions that materially alter the terms of the tenancy (including rent increases and nonrenewals) or interfere with the occupants' use of the property. B. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that any attempt by the owner to raise rents, curtail services, refuse to renew or attempt to evict a tenant within six months after any report to the City or the owner or any enforcement action in connection with a suspected lead hazard is a retaliatory action in violation of this section, except that in instances of nonpayment of rent or commission of waste upon the premises by the tenant no such presumption shall apply. After six months from the date of the reporting of a suspected lead hazard, or the most recent activity related to any enforcement action, the defense of retaliatory eviction shall remain available to the tenant, but without the benefit of the presumption created by this section. C. The provisions of this section shall not be given effect in any case in which it is established that the condition from which the complaint or action arose was caused by the tenant, a member of the tenant's household, or a guest of the tenant; nor shall it apply in a case where a tenancy was terminated pursuant to the terms of a lease as a result of a bona fide transfer of ownership.
Rochester, N.Y., Code of Ordinances ch. 90 § 90-63 establishes that property owners may not take adverse action against a tenant because that tenant reported a suspected lead-based paint hazard to the owner or to the City. When an owner raises rent, cuts services, refuses to renew a lease, or moves to evict within six months of such a report or related enforcement activity, the law treats that action as presumptively retaliatory — meaning the burden shifts to the owner to prove otherwise. The presumption does not apply when the tenant has failed to pay rent or has damaged the property, and it also does not apply when the hazardous condition was caused by the tenant, a household member, or a guest, or when a tenancy ends due to a genuine ownership transfer.
Plain English — not legal advice.
Owners and property managers operating under § 90-63 generally document the independent, non-retaliatory business reasons for any rent increase, service change, non-renewal, or eviction proceeding — particularly when such actions occur within six months of a lead-hazard report or City enforcement activity. Maintaining clear records of lease terms, payment histories, and property-condition inspections helps demonstrate that decisions were made on legitimate grounds unrelated to a tenant's complaint. Operators should be aware that the six-month window creates a heightened evidentiary burden, and that the presumption of retaliation can be rebutted only by affirmative evidence of a lawful basis for the action.
General guidance for property managers — not legal advice for your specific situation. Consult an attorney for advice on your case.
Under § 90-63, tenants in Rochester who report a suspected lead-based paint hazard to their landlord or to the City are protected from adverse actions taken in response to that report. If a rent increase, service reduction, non-renewal, or eviction attempt occurs within six months of such a report, the law presumes it is retaliatory, giving tenants a built-in defense they may raise in any resulting legal proceeding. Tenants who believe this protection applies to their situation may consider contacting the City of Rochester, a local tenant-rights organization, or a housing attorney to understand the enforcement paths available to them.
General guidance for tenants — not legal advice for your specific situation. Consult a tenant-rights organization or attorney for advice on your case.
Generated November 7, 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
Rules and statutes that cite this regulation