City Council hearing reviews making Certificate of No Harassment permanent amid immigrant‑tenant concerns

The New York City Council’s joint hearing on Intro 839 (2026) opened with council members and advocates warning that immigrant tenants face harassment — including threats to call federal immigration authorities — that can deter reporting and accelerate displacement.

Co‑chair Council member Olsen Encarnación said the hearing aims to assess the Certificate of No Harassment (CONH) pilot, which HPD uses to flag buildings at risk of tenant harassment and requires owners to obtain a certificate before certain major permits are approved. "New Yorkers deserve to live free of harassment," Encarnación said, noting that in a city with roughly 3 million immigrants, many households are rent‑burdened and undocumented tenants lack access to federal assistance.

HPD deputy commissioner Annmarie Santiago testified that HPD and partner agencies coordinated multilingual outreach and enforcement after reports that people impersonated city inspectors and that some landlords threatened to call ICE. Santiago said HPD’s March 2026 report shows more than 15% of CONH applications were denied because investigators found harassment — a sign the program can identify problematic buildings — but noted that only 30 applications were filed over a four‑year period by owners of about 1,500 listed buildings.

HPD recommended making CONH permanent with targeted refinements: regularly updating eligibility metrics such as the Building Qualification Index (BQI), ensuring the "cure" mechanism is a viable path for compliant owners, and preserving rules that let urgent repairs proceed. Santiago described operational changes made after the original pilot (2018) to reduce conflicts with other enforcement programs that had delayed necessary repairs.

Council members pressed HPD on several gaps. They asked whether formal protocols exist for referrals between HPD and the City Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) and other agencies; Santiago said agencies have long communicated and that Executive Order 13 establishes an interagency process intended to formalize referral mechanisms. Members also asked what HPD inspectors should do if they encounter ICE or impersonators in the field; HPD said inspectors should contact supervisors immediately and escalate the incident.

Members sought data explaining the low application rate — "30 out of 1,500" — and whether that reflects a lack of owner interest in covered work, missing outreach, or structural barriers; HPD said CONH is a deterrence tool that applies only when owners seek covered categories of work, and said staffing, timing, and data limitations make simple comparisons difficult. HPD reported an average administrative timeline around seven months during the pilot but said staffing fluctuations and built‑in investigation steps (public notice, comment, tenant interviews) affect timing.

On community outreach and enforcement pathways, HPD described its Partners in Preservation program, a network of 21 community groups that help identify at‑risk buildings and refer tenants for inspections or assistance. HPD said 311 and language‑line services are available for complaints and that some HPD pamphlets and materials exist in multiple languages; staff agreed to follow up with members on language coverage, subsidy overlap among listed buildings, and comparative citywide statistics.

No formal votes or council actions occurred during the hearing; committee members asked HPD for additional data and follow‑up on processing times, application distribution, and the extent to which listed buildings receive city subsidies or tax benefits. The hearing concluded with HPD offering to provide the requested data and to continue collaborating with council members and community groups on refining CONH.

The committee is expected to use the testimony and the agency’s follow‑up information to craft amendments to Intro 839 and to determine whether the CONH pilot should transition to a permanent program.