senate Bill S3183

2013-2014 Legislative Session

Relates to tenant security deposit accounts and administrative expenses to which a person may be entitled

download bill text pdf

Sponsored By

Archive: Last Bill Status - In Committee

  • Introduced
  • In Committee
  • On Floor Calendar
    • Passed Senate
    • Passed Assembly
  • Delivered to Governor
  • Signed/Vetoed by Governor

do you support this bill?


view actions (2)
Assembly Actions - Lowercase
Senate Actions - UPPERCASE
Jan 08, 2014 referred to judiciary
Jan 31, 2013 referred to judiciary


S3183 - Bill Details

See Assembly Version of this Bill:
Current Committee:
Law Section:
General Obligations Law
Laws Affected:
Amd §7-103, Gen Ob L
Versions Introduced in Previous Legislative Sessions:
2011-2012: S387, A635
2009-2010: S7965, A6824A

S3183 - Bill Texts

view summary

Provides that a landlord depositing security deposits in an interest bearing account shall be entitled to receive as administration expenses a sum equivalent to 20 percent of the interest earned by such security money per annum, but not to exceed one percent per annum of the money so deposited.

view sponsor memo

TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the general obligations law, in relation
to tenant security deposit accounts

PURPOSE OF BILL: This bill ensures that tenants receive a fair share of
the interest earned by their security deposits.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS: This bill amends General Obligations Law
7-103(2) to provide that the fee retained by landlords for their
expenses in administering tenant security deposit accounts shall be
twenty percent of the interest earned on such accounts, up to a maximum
of one percent of the amount on deposit.

EXISTING LAW: General Obligations Law § 7-103 currently authorizes
landlords to retain the first 1% of any interest earned on a tenant's
security deposit.

JUSTIFICATION: Prior to 1970, there was no requirement that tenants be
paid interest on the money held by landlords as security deposits for
their apartments. Instead, landlords were free to place those funds in
non-interest bearing accounts, and to simply return the security deposit
to the tenant at the end of the term of the lease.

The Legislature sought to cure this inequity through the passage of
Chapter 1009 of the Laws of 1970, which amended General Obligations Law
§ 7-103 in two ways. First, the law provided that landlords in buildings
with six or more dwelling units must place security deposits in accounts
earning the prevailing rate of interest for similar accounts in the
area. Second, the law authorized the landlords to retain a fee of 1% of
the amount deposited to cover any expenses that the landlord incurred in
administering the accounts. Thus, for the first time tenants were
assured that they would receive interest payments on the security depos-
its that they provided 16 their landlords, and the law also sought to
compensate landlords for the administrative costs that they were
expected to incur.

Unfortunately, the effectiveness of this law has been greatly diminished
by the manner in which Chapter 1009 was drafted and has been imple-
mented, together with other events that have occurred during the past 30

First, when the amendments to General Obligations Law § 7-103 were
enacted in 1970, interest rates on basic savings accounts were about 6%.

As a result, at the time it appeared reasonable to permit landlords to
retain a 1% administrative fee, because the tenant would still receive
most of the interest earned. For example, a $1000 security deposit would
earn $60 per year, with $50 (83% of the total interest) being paid to
the tenant and $10 (17% of the total interest) being paid to the land-

Over the years, however, there has been a significant drop in interest
rates on savings accounts, and under the current statutory scheme
tenants have borne all the financial consequences of that decrease.
Indeed, some banks axe now paying only 1.1% interest on tenant security
deposits, but the landlord is still getting a full 1% fee, and the
tenant is left with only one-tenth of 1%. For example, the same $1000
security deposit that earned $60 per year in 1970 would earn only $11
per year now, with the landlord still getting $10, and the tenant only
$1. Thus, now the landlord is receiving 91% of the security deposit
interest, and the tenant is receiving only 9%. General Obligations Law
§ 7-103 specifically provides that rental security deposits "continue to
be the money of the tenant.... and shall be held in trust by the land-
lord" for the tenant, and thus it is particularly unfair that the land-
lord should receive most of the interest on such deposits.

A second significant flaw in General Obligations Law § 7-103 is that it
provides an administrative fee to landlords, even if no administrative
expenses are incurred, When Section 7-103 was amended in 1970, it was
anticipated that landlords could be faced with significant costs in
administering the accounts, and the Legislature therefore granted land-
lords a 1% fee to cover those expected costs. After that amendment was
passed, however, banking institutions developed special "tenant security
deposit accounts" through which the bank handles virtually all of the
administrative functions for the landlords. Banks provide these services
as an inducement to landlords, because tenant security deposits from the
hundreds of thousands of tenants in New York State provide tens of
millions of dollars in deposits to the banks. Section 7-103 continues to
authorize the payment of a 1% administrative fee to landlords, however
even though they perform no administrative duties.

Granting landlords a flat fee eliminates any financial incentive for
landlords to place tenant security deposits in higher-earning accounts.
For example, while some banks are paying only 1.1% on tenant security
deposit accounts, other banks pay up to 2.5% on the same types of
accounts. Section 7-103 specifically provides that the landlords hold
the security deposits "in trust" for the tenants, and as trustees they
are obligated to seek the highest interest rate available for their
tenants. Most landlords fail to do so, thereby subjecting themselves to
lawsuits for a breach of their fiduciary duties, but the cost of liti-
gation prevents tenants from asserting their rights.

The losses to tenants are significant. As noted above, a $1000 security
deposit in an account earning 1.1% will result in the landlord receiving
$10 per year and the tenant receiving only $1 per year. If the landlord
placed the funds in an account earning 2.5%, the landlord would still
receive $10, but the tenant would receive $15, which is 1500% more than
the tenant would receive with the 1.1% account. Although an increase of
$14 per tenant per year may not appear significant, and certainly does
not provide a sufficient incentive for a tenant to commence litigation,
the cumulative loss to all tenants in the State is in the millions of
dollars per year.

The adverse impact on tenants is further exacerbated by the manner in
which security deposit earnings are calculated for tax purposes.
specifically, even though Section 7-103 provides that the administrative
fee is paid directly to the landlord, and only the interest actually
paid to the tenant "shall be the money of the person making the depos-
it", most banks calculate the full interest earned as income of the
tenant. As a result, all of the interest is reported to the Internal
Revenue Service and set forth on the tenant's Form 1099 each year, and
the tenant must pay income taxes on that full amount.

This results in a gross inequity for the tenant. Using the same example
once again, a $1000 security deposit earning 1.1% will pay $11 in inter-
est each year, with $10 being paid to the landlord and $1 being paid to
the tenant. However, the bank reports the full $11 as income of the
tenant. If the tenant is in a 20% tax bracket and does not itemize
deductions, the tenant will have to pay $2.20 in income tax. In other
words, the tenant who has $1000 being held in trust in a security depos-
it account will end up with a $1.20 loss per year ($1 in interest minus
$2.20 in taxes), while the landlord will receive a $10 gain per year
from the "administrative fee", even though the bank is performing all of
the administrative duties. Ironically, the tenant would be better off if
the money were placed in an account that earned no interest at all.

This bill addresses the inequities in the current law, specifically, the
bill amends General Obligations Law § 7-103(2) to provide that landlords
shall receive an administrative fee equal to 20% of the interest earned
on the tenant security accounts, up to a maximum of 1% of the amount on
deposit. This conforms the law to the initial intent of the Legislature
in 1970, when at least 80% of the interest earned on these accounts
would have been paid to the landlords based upon the interest rates
prevailing at the time.

In addition, by switching from a flat fee to a percentage fee, this bill
will give landlords an incentive to seek out the highest-interest
accounts available. For example, a landlord holding $750,000 in tenant
security deposits will receive a fee of $1,550 per year if the funds are
placed in a tenant security deposit account earning 1.1%, but the fee
will increase to $3,750 per year if the funds are placed in an account
earning 2.5% per year. Encouraging the use of accounts earning higher
interest rates will provide benefits to both the landlord and the
tenant, with landlords earning higher fees and tenants receiving larger
interest payments.

Chapter 1009 of the Laws of 1970 was truly landmark legislation, ensur-
ing for the first time that the tens of millions of dollars in security
deposits paid by tenants would be placed in interest-bearing accounts to
benefit tenants. unfortunately, a combination of several factors - the
manner in which the legislation was drafted, the transfer of administra-
tive duties from landlords to banks, the absence of financial incentives
for landlords to seek higher-earning accounts, and the subsequent,
significant drop in interest rates- -- has resulted in some tenants
experiencing financial losses under the current statutory mechanism for

allocating interest on tenant security deposit accounts. This legis-
lation addresses this problem and ensures that tenants will once again
be paid an appropriate percentage of the interest earned by their secu-
rity deposits held by landlords.


LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: 2010: S.7965/A.6824-A 2012: S.387/A.635

EFFECTIVE DATE: The bill takes effect on the first of January following

view full text
download pdf
                    S T A T E   O F   N E W   Y O R K


                       2013-2014 Regular Sessions

                            I N  S E N A T E

                            January 31, 2013

Introduced  by  Sen. KRUEGER -- read twice and ordered printed, and when
  printed to be committed to the Committee on Judiciary

AN ACT to amend the general obligations law, in relation to tenant secu-
  rity deposit accounts


  Section  1.  Subdivision 2 of section 7-103 of the general obligations
law, as amended by chapter 402 of the laws of 1979, is amended  to  read
as follows:
  2.  Whenever the person receiving money so deposited or advanced shall
deposit such money in a banking organization, such person shall thereup-
on notify in writing each of the persons making such security deposit or
advance, giving the name and address  of  the  banking  organization  in
which  the  deposit  of  security  money is made, and the amount of such
deposit. Deposits in a banking organization pursuant to  the  provisions
of  this  subdivision  shall  be made in a banking organization having a
place of business within the state. If the person depositing such  secu-
rity  money  in a banking organization shall deposit same in an interest
bearing account, [he] SUCH PERSON  shall  be  entitled  to  receive,  as
administration  expenses,  a  sum  equivalent  to  TWENTY PERCENT OF THE
[per  cent] PERCENT per annum [upon] OF the security money so deposited,
which shall be  in  lieu  of  all  other  administrative  and  custodial
expenses.  The  balance of the interest paid by the banking organization
shall be the money of the person making the deposit or advance and shall
either be held in trust by the person with whom such deposit or  advance
shall  be  made,  until  repaid  or applied for the use or rental of the
leased premises, or annually paid to the person making  the  deposit  of
security money.
  S  2. This act shall take effect on the first of January next succeed-
ing the date on which it shall have become a law.

 EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
                      [ ] is old law to be omitted.


Open Legislation comments facilitate discussion of New York State legislation. All comments are subject to moderation. Comments deemed off-topic, commercial, campaign-related, self-promotional; or that contain profanity or hate speech; or that link to sites outside of the domain are not permitted, and will not be published. Comment moderation is generally performed Monday through Friday.

By contributing or voting you agree to the Terms of Participation and verify you are over 13.