The FARE Act<\/a>, which went into effect in June 2025<\/a>, specifies that if a broker publishes a listing for a rental property, that broker is to be paid by the landlord. The law aimed to end the practice, long customary in New York City, of tenants shelling out for brokers they never hired in order to secure an apartment in the city\u2019s competitive rental market.<\/p>\n Hundreds of pages of summonses and supporting evidence issued by the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection between June 2025 and April 2026 offer a glimpse at how brokers are breaking the law or operating in a legal gray area, according to the agency enforcing the ban.<\/p>\n The documents, which The City Reporter obtained through a Freedom of Information Law request, include some clear-cut cases where apartment listings directly ask for broker fees, but not all were as straightforward. Some brokers disguised the fees by other names, or coaxed tenants into paying fees in exchange for preferential consideration. Others offered alternative apartments, then characterized them as \u201coff-market\u201d listings that required a fee.\u00a0<\/p>\n Since the law took effect through mid-October, New Yorkers have filed more than 2,500 broker fee-related complaints and queries to DCWP, though most lack enough information for the agency to act upon, it said. It issued 91 summonses alleging 130 violations, including 55 violations that resulted in $60,000 in penalties. The agency also secured more than $24,000 in fees paid back to tenants.<\/p>\n The Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings adjudicates FARE Act cases.<\/p>\n DCWP Commissioner Sam Levine said the FARE Act has helped crack down on broker fees, and that his office has seen a decline in complaints in recent months.<\/p>\n \u201cOur own monitoring of StreetEasy and the other platforms suggests more landlords are complying with the law, and we\u2019ve been, I think, aggressive in enforcement,\u201d Levine said, adding that the agency has, for the first time, brought in staff specifically focused on landlord-tenant issues.<\/p>\n Fees Promising Applicants an Edge: Conditioning<\/p>\n Some applicants eager to lock down apartments in the city\u2019s tight housing market found promises of preference and priority in exchange for broker fees. But DCWP charged these brokers with violating the FARE Act clause that says, \u201cNo person shall condition the rental of residential real property on a tenant engaging any agent\u201d \u2014 also known as \u201cconditioning.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n In one instance, two women together applied to two apartments, including one in Crown Heights with a balcony. \u201cWe are wondering if there is any way for you to give us a sense of our odds,\u201d one would-be tenant said in an email to the broker, Diana Belorusets. \u201cIf there is a chance of our application \u2026 getting approved, then we\u2019re happy to hold off and cross our fingers (and toes!) for this unit.\u201d<\/p>\n During a subsequent phone call Belorusets said paying a broker fee would increase the chances of the applicants getting the apartment, according to the summons. The next day, she avoided mentioning the fee, emailing, \u201cAs per our discussion yesterday, it seems like you\u2019re not interested in that idea which is fine. But I have other applicants who are so I\u2019ll let you know.\u201d<\/p>\n Belorusets, who did not respond to a request for comment, was found in violation of the FARE Act and had to pay $1,125 as a penalty.<\/p>\n DCWP also alleged illegal conditioning occurred in two separate instances when tenants in buildings managed by Coney Realty and Management reached out to add new roommates to their leases. Dianne Barwise, who worked at the company but left in December, told one household that the new roommate would have to go through the standard application process through \u201cour broker\u201d and pay a fee. (Neither Barwise nor Coney responded to requests for comment.)<\/p>\n In the other instance, tenant Aleia Jacobs told The City Reporter that her new roommate in Hell\u2019s Kitchen chose to pay the $1,000 lease amendment fee, \u201cjust to get it over with.\u201d But Jacobs, 26, felt something was fishy, despite Barwise doubling down. She told Jacobs, \u201cthe FARE Act does not apply\u201d because the lease amendment was \u201cat [Jacobs\u2019] request,\u201d the summons record said.<\/p>\n In Jacobs\u2019 case, no one from Coney Realty showed up to an August 2025 hearing, so the company was found in violation by default. The company motioned for a new hearing and claimed it did not receive the summons, but OATH denied the motion. The second case was sustained, with Coney found in violation of the FARE Act.<\/p>\n Many brokers who are hit with summonses are not appearing at hearings to respond to them. Of the more than 70 summonses The City Reporter reviewed with verifiable outcomes, in over half the cases, brokers were found to be at fault because they did not appear.<\/p>\n In several of the no-appearance cases, brokers said they never knew about the summonses until The City Reporter inquired about them.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cWe serve brokers at the address where they\u2019re licensed,\u201d Levine said. \u201cIf there was any issue in service, they will have an opportunity to contest it.\u201d<\/p>\n Broker Fee by Any Other Name<\/p>\n DCWP also drew a red line at fees creatively renamed.<\/p>\n One StreetEasy ad for a renovated two-bedroom apartment in Woodside included a \u201cfinders fee\u201d equal to one month\u2019s rent of $2,350. Another broker included a one-month \u201creal estate fee\u201d on a Craigslist ad. Elsewhere, brokers have described required fees as \u201cfor move in and management services,\u201d \u201cone-time management fees,\u201d and for refurbishing the apartment before move-in.<\/p>\n In all cases, DCWP said those constituted disguised broker fees.\u00a0<\/p>\n In several cases, brokers were charged a separate fine for not \u201cclearly and conspicuously\u201d disclosing fees as small as $25, like those for background checks or credit reports. The FARE Act stipulates that all fees must be clearly denoted in apartment listings.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n \u2018Off-Market\u2019 Listings, and Bait and Switch<\/p>\n Since the start of the FARE Act, tenants have reported a proliferation of \u201coff-market\u201d offerings \u2014 those that do not appear on sites like StreetEasy, but that brokers promise to give access to for a fee. But when a broker dangles the availability of these hidden listings it\u2019s a form of conditioning, DCWP ruled in several summonses.<\/p>\n In one case, a tenant reached out to broker Said Bennani about a one-bedroom apartment in Washington Heights. Bennani in a text indicated the apartment had been rented but had a new one in the same building. \u201cIt\u2019s 3 times better,\u201d he wrote. \u201cHas a fee. Off market apt.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n The tenant texted, \u201cI\u2019ll pass. Bait and switch is a nasty tactic.\u201d<\/p>\n Said wrote back, \u201cI offered [and] you said no. I\u2019m actually considering you for a fantastic rent stabilized off market listing. Out of more than 100 inquiries I got. Apt is worth an easy $3000. You should say thank u.\u201d<\/p>\n When asked about the summons, Bennani told The City Reporter he had \u201cno knowledge about this.\u201d After being emailed the summons and evidentiary documents, he stopped responding to emails or returning calls. OATH data shows Bennani was found to be in violation by default because he did not show up to a hearing.<\/p>\n Levine, the commissioner, characterized the off-market listings as \u201cshenanigans\u201d designed to evade the FARE Act.<\/p>\n \u201cThese backdoor attempts to impose broker fees on tenants, I think, are really unfortunate,\u201d Levine said. \u201cI think the state \u2014 which has expressed a lot of commitment to making housing more affordable \u2014 can do something very concrete about this by requiring public listings and insisting that brokers choose a side,\u201d between representing tenants or landlords.<\/p>\n DCWP also took issue with broker Marc Shagalow texting tenants about \u201coff-market\u201d units in Crown Heights and Williamsburg.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cJust got this off market listing for a pretty unbelievable price!\u201d Shagalow texted a potential tenant. The renter expressed interest, and Shagalow informed them, \u201cbeing that this is off market there will be a broker fee.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cAnd who would be paying that? I didn\u2019t hire a broker,\u201d the tenant replied. Later, the same tenant filed a complaint with DCWP.<\/p>\n Shagalow declined to comment on that specific case \u2014 on which OATH hasn\u2019t yet made a decision \u2014 but said he would not bait tenants with fake listings.<\/p>\n \u201cThere are brokers out there who are listing apartments, and the apartment is not for rent, and then they say, \u2018Oh, I just rented this, but I have this,\u2019\u201d Shagalow said. \u201cI personally wouldn\u2019t ever do something like that because I don\u2019t think it\u2019s ethical.\u201d<\/p>\n The FARE Act, as DCWP stated in summonses, lets agents advertise services, but does not let them \u201ccondition the availability of specific or identifiable residential rental property inventory on a tenant hiring and paying a broker.\u201d<\/p>\n Gray Areas as Brokers Cope With Change<\/p>\n At times, brokers sprung fees onto tenants at the last minute, retroactively justified through informal texts, emails and memories of phone calls. When a tenant notified broker Heather Fiumano and her brokerage firm, Arch\u00e9 Nest, that he\u2019d sent in his security deposit, Arch\u00e9 Nest responded, \u201cthank you! This will now serve as your brokers fee.\u201d The tenant responded by citing the FARE Act, notifying the brokerage that despite his appreciation for Fiumano, it was the landlord\u2019s responsibility to compensate the broker.\u00a0<\/p>\n In a long reply to the tenant, Arch\u00e9 Nest\u2019s CEO Jadine Walters responded that a \u201cverbal agreement\u201d was made over a phone call between Fiumano and the tenant, and, in the absence of a written agreement, argued that \u201cthe messages of appreciation you sent Heather after the lease was finalized,\u201d revealed the nature of their \u201cworking relationship.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cTexts such as \u2018Ur a friggin hero, can\u2019t tell you how much I appreciate you going out to bat for us,\u2019 and \u2018Glad u finally get some bread as well you\u2019ve been helping us for so long\u2019,\u201d affirm that you recognized Heather\u2019s dedication and agreed compensation was both earned and deserved,\u201d Walters wrote.<\/p>\n The tenant asked for a partial refund of half the fee, warning they would otherwise file a FARE Act summons. Walters and Fiumano never responded.\u00a0<\/p>\n Walters indicated she would comment for this story on behalf of Fiumano, but The City Reporter never heard back. OATH found Fiumano in violation of the FARE Act by default, as she did not appear for her hearing.<\/p>\n Other brokers were up front about the limits of what they thought they could do under the new law, but still ran afoul of it.<\/p>\n One of those cases involved a Craigslist post by Brooklyn Heights Real Estate (BHRE) for three rent-stabilized apartments available that the firm knew of \u201cbecause of our long-standing relationships with local owners and management companies.\u201d But, the post explained, \u201cdue to the FARE Act, we are not permitted to advertise or publicly market these units\u201d while charging a broker fee. Instead BHRE used the Craigslist post to solicit tenants to hire them for exclusive access to units unavailable online. In the summons, DCWP said it was clear would-be tenants couldn\u2019t access the apartments without hiring a broker.<\/p>\n \u201cWe didn\u2019t know we were violating any law or anything,\u201d BHRE managing partner Lior Cohen told The City Reporter. \u201cWe advertised a general ad on Craigslist that if you\u2019re looking for an apartment \u2026 and you cannot find anything, you have the option to hire BHRE as your agent.\u201d<\/p>\n While Cohen said his brokerage only meant to advertise its services through the post, DCWP drew the line at the specificity of the listing, which qualified it as an apartment listing in the agency\u2019s eyes.<\/p>\n \u201cOnce we got the summons, we obviously took all the ads out and we stopped doing it,\u201d Cohen said. The case is still pending.<\/p>\n In another case, a proactive tenant reached out to broker Gregory Bartlett about an old StreetEasy listing for an apartment in a brownstone on the edge of Fort Greene Park, what she called her \u201cdream location.\u201d The tenant, Kendra Norfleet, 27, wondered if the unit \u2014 or a similar one \u2014 might once again come to market.\u00a0<\/p>\n Bartlett, whom The City Reporter was unable to reach through calls and emails, then asked if Norfleet would pay a broker fee to pay for his real estate company\u2019s service finding an apartment for her. She wrote back invoking the FARE Act and clarified that she was not hiring him to find an apartment \u201csince I already did that part,\u201d with a laugh-crying emoji.\u00a0<\/p>\n About a week later, Bartlett listed the apartment online and scheduled an open house by appointment. When Norfleet tried to schedule an appointment, Bartlett said the open house had \u201cfilled up.\u201d<\/p>\n Norfleet wrote back to say it seemed she was \u201cbeing punished\u201d for not working with the broker and suspected she was \u201cexcluded from the viewing process\u201d as a result.<\/p>\n Norfleet never got that apartment.<\/p>\n \u201cThey would not show it to me after I pointed out that I did not hire them and would not be paying them a broker\u2019s fee,\u201d she told The City Reporter. \u201cIt really pissed me off.\u201d<\/p>\n After Norfleet filed a complaint to DCWP, Bartlett was found in violation by default after not appearing.<\/p>\n The Future of FARE<\/p>\n Levine at DCWP sees enforcing the FARE Act as only the beginning to help bring New York City in line with other cities where apartment-seekers are not hit with fees for brokers they did not hire.\u00a0<\/p>\n But the types of FARE Act violations so far point to where he\u2019s set his sights for further action. He said he wants the state to prohibit agents to work for both tenants and landlords, who have \u201ccompletely misaligned interests and are on opposite sides of a transaction.\u201d<\/p>\n![\"The](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/broker_fee_text_diptych_2.jpg\")
The Department of Consumer and Worker Protection alleged agent Said Bennani violated the FARE Act. Credit: DCWP via FOIL request<\/p>\n![\"The](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/broker_fee_text_diptych_3.jpg\")
The Department of Consumer and Worker Protection alleged agent Marc Shagalow violated the FARE Act. Credit: DCWP via FOIL request<\/p>\n