Tenants who don’t want to deal with racist slurs, even if they live in the same building, are legally allowed to refuse to rent to blacks, according to a new book.
Tenants who want to live in a Chinatown neighborhood without having to confront racist slurs are legally entitled to refuse black tenants, according a new law in New York City.
But the city’s Department of Investigation has found no evidence that a landlord or an owner of a business has ever faced such a lawsuit, and said there is no such requirement in the New York state Tenants Union ordinance.
The New York Times has reported on how the law was written and passed, with the language that would prevent landlords from discriminating based on race in the early 1990s.
Tenants and their advocates have repeatedly pushed for it to be repealed, and it has become a top issue in the city.
In 2014, a federal judge in Brooklyn found that the law, known as the Tenants’ Bill of Rights, did not protect tenants against landlords who did not have a “just cause” to evict them.
Tenant rights groups have said the law unfairly punishes tenants and unfairly targets minorities, who are more likely to be black.
In New York, tenants who do not want to rent because of racist or other discriminatory comments are legally protected from harassment, including discrimination based on age, race, color, religion or national origin, the city said in a news release.
Ten tenants who refuse to lease because of the law can get an eviction order, but they must have an attorney present to file the claim.
Tenant advocates say that can be difficult because of a history of discrimination in the industry.
The city has also argued that the lawsuit was frivolous, and not about discrimination.
The law was passed in 1995, and was designed to make it easier for landlords to evict tenants who have failed to pay rent or rent to someone else, according the city Department of Buildings.
Tenancy laws in New England have been controversial since the 1970s, when a landmark case against New York’s rent control system was overturned by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1975 that tenants in New Hampshire were not entitled to the same protections under the Housing Act of 1949 that tenants of other states enjoyed, including the right to rent privately.
The ruling came after the Supreme Judicial Court, a lower court, struck down the Housing Authority of New York and New Jersey’s rent-control law in 1975.
The court found that landlords had no legal right to force tenants to pay for their own housing.
A decade later, in 1982, a group of plaintiffs sued the city of Chicago in federal court, alleging that landlords discriminated against tenants based on their race.
The plaintiffs argued that landlords in Chicago were allowed to evict renters for failing to pay the city $150 a month in rent, even though the city could not legally evict them for failing the rent.
In 1993, a majority of the Supreme Courts unanimously ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.
The court’s ruling struck down Illinois’s rent regulation law, which barred landlords from evicting tenants for failing pay the rent, but allowed landlords to fire or refuse to renew rent to tenants for not paying rent.
The ruling came despite the fact that landlords can legally evict tenants based solely on rent and the fact there is a state law protecting tenants from such discrimination.