Source of income discrimination, defined
Source of income discrimination is refusing to rent to — or otherwise treating differently — a tenant because of how they lawfully pay their rent, including refusing tenants who use a housing voucher like Section 8 or CityFHEPS. In New York City, "source of income" is a protected category under the NYC Human Rights Law, which means a landlord cannot refuse an otherwise-qualified applicant simply because part or all of their rent is paid through a voucher, subsidy, or public-assistance program rather than a paycheck.
This protection covers a wide range of lawful income sources beyond wages, including:
- Section 8 / Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV) — administered in NYC primarily through NYCHA, with a separate HPD-run Section 8 program
- CityFHEPS — the city's rental assistance voucher for households at risk of or experiencing homelessness
- HASA — rental assistance for eligible New Yorkers living with HIV/AIDS, administered through HRA
- HAVP and other FHEPS-family programs, and comparable federal, state, or local rental assistance
- Child support, alimony, disability benefits, and other lawful non-wage income
The legal principle is the same across all of them: how a tenant pays is not a valid reason to deny them housing, so long as the total income — subsidy plus any tenant share — meets the building's standard, consistently-applied qualification criteria.
How it works in New York City
NYC's source-of-income protections are enforced by the NYC Commission on Human Rights, which investigates complaints, can conduct testing/audits of listings and leasing practices, and has authority to impose civil penalties and damages on landlords, agents, or brokers found to have discriminated. Common violations the Commission has pursued include:
- Advertising or stating "no vouchers," "no Section 8," or "no subsidies accepted"
- Telling a voucher holder a unit is unavailable when it isn't
- Requiring a higher income multiple, larger deposit, or extra fees specifically from voucher applicants
- Refusing to complete the paperwork or unit inspection a voucher program requires to finalize a HAP contract
- Steering voucher holders toward only certain units or buildings
Because vouchers are common in NYC — and especially in neighborhoods where Yak Management operates across Brooklyn — this isn't a fringe compliance issue. It's a day-to-day leasing and screening practice that owners of rent-stabilized and market-rate buildings alike need to get right.
Why it matters for owners of rent-stabilized or voucher buildings
Owners sometimes assume accepting a voucher is optional, or that a subsidized tenancy is inherently riskier or slower to fill. Neither is accurate, and treating it that way creates real legal exposure — plus it leaves qualified tenants and steady, agency-backed rent on the table.
A few reasons this matters operationally, not just legally:
- Voucher rent is typically reliable and paid directly by the administering agency, which can mean more payment consistency than some market-rate tenancies.
- Rent-stabilized buildings frequently overlap with voucher tenancies — a stabilized unit and a subsidized tenant are not mutually exclusive, and rent stabilization rules still apply on top of the voucher paperwork.
- Screening still applies. Accepting vouchers doesn't mean skipping credit, background, or rental-history review — it means applying the same criteria to every applicant, voucher or not, and evaluating total income (subsidy + tenant portion) fairly.
- Getting the leasing language wrong is an easy, avoidable mistake. A listing that says "no vouchers" or a leasing agent who quietly discourages voucher applicants can expose an owner to a Commission complaint even if it wasn't intentional.
This is exactly the kind of compliance detail that's easy to get wrong without hands-on experience — which is why government housing program management and Section 8 & voucher management are core parts of what we do, alongside our work on rent-stabilized buildings and CityFHEPS tenancies.
Common misconceptions
| Misconception | Reality |
|---|---|
| "Accepting vouchers is optional, like a courtesy." | It's a legal requirement in NYC — refusing an otherwise-qualified voucher applicant is prohibited under the NYC Human Rights Law. |
| "I can still screen voucher applicants more strictly to be safe." | You can screen everyone consistently, but applying extra scrutiny only to voucher holders is itself a form of source-of-income discrimination. |
| "This only applies to Section 8." | It applies to CityFHEPS, HASA, HAVP, and other lawful rental-assistance income too, not just federal Section 8. |
| "If I just don't advertise 'no vouchers,' I'm covered." | Steering, discouraging, or informally slow-walking voucher applicants can also violate the law — the practice matters as much as the wording. |
| "Voucher tenancies are automatically harder to manage." | With the right process for inspections, HAP paperwork, and agency coordination, voucher tenancies run as smoothly as any other lease. |
A quick example
Say a two-family building owner in Bed-Stuy lists a vacant unit and a prospective tenant applies with a CityFHEPS voucher covering most of the rent, with the tenant responsible for the remainder. The owner cannot reject the application simply because the primary payment source is the voucher. The owner can — and should — verify the total household income meets the building's standard qualification criteria, run a normal background and rental-history check, and then proceed through the standard CityFHEPS approval and inspection steps like any other qualified applicant.
Related terms
- Section 8 / Housing Choice Voucher — the federal rental-assistance program most commonly at issue in source-of-income cases.
- CityFHEPS — NYC's rental assistance voucher for households facing or experiencing homelessness.
- HAP Contract — the agreement between owner and housing agency that makes a voucher tenancy official.
- HAVP — another rental assistance/voucher program covered by the same protections.
Managing a building with rent-stabilized units, voucher tenants, or both? Schedule a property consultation or call 718-568-9278 — this is one of the areas we know best.
This page is educational and not legal advice. For guidance on a specific situation or complaint, consult a qualified New York attorney or the NYC Commission on Human Rights.