Free New York Mold Disclosure

There is no statewide New York statute requiring a mold disclosure in a residential lease. What the state regulates by statute is the work rather than the paperwork: Labor Law article 32 licenses mold assessment, remediation and abatement, and nothing in that article creates a lease-disclosure duty. A written disclosure is therefore voluntary, but useful — it records what the landlord knew and when, which is the fact most often disputed later. Local rules, and any rider already in your lease, can add obligations that state law does not impose.

Licensing and work standards. Labor Law § 931 makes it unlawful for a contractor to engage in mold assessment or mold remediation on a project, or to advertise or hold itself out as doing so, without a valid licence from the Commissioner of Labor, and unlawful for an individual to perform mold abatement without an abater’s licence. A copy of a valid assessment or remediation licence must be conspicuously displayed at the work site. Section 932 sets the qualification, course-work and liability-insurance requirements, and § 931(5) preserves the scope of practice of design professionals licensed under title eight of the Education Law.

No, and the threshold is specific. Labor Law § 930(6) defines a “project” as mold remediation, mold assessment or mold abatement “of areas greater than ten square feet,” and expressly excludes routine cleaning and the construction, maintenance, repair or demolition of buildings undertaken for purposes other than mold remediation or abatement. Section 930(3) further excludes remediating the underlying source of moisture where that requires expertise outside the article. So a small wipe-down is not a licensed project, while a substantial remediation is. Measure the affected area before deciding who may lawfully do the work.

Not on the same property. Labor Law § 936(2) states that no licensee shall perform both mold assessment and mold remediation on the same property, and § 936(3) goes further: no person may own an interest in both the licensee performing the assessment and the licensee performing the remediation there. Section 936(1) requires an assessment licensee to provide a written report to each person for whom it performs assessment services for compensation. The separation exists so the party diagnosing the problem is not the party paid to keep finding more of it.

It can be. RPL § 235-b(1) implies into every written or oral lease for residential premises a covenant that the premises and all areas used in common “are fit for human habitation and for the uses reasonably intended by the parties,” and that occupants will not be subjected to conditions “which would be dangerous, hazardous or detrimental to their life, health or safety.” Whether a particular mold condition breaches that warranty is fact-specific. The same subdivision excepts a condition caused by the misconduct of the tenant or of persons under the tenant’s direction or control.

No. RPL § 235-b(2) provides that “any agreement by a lessee or tenant of a dwelling waiving or modifying his rights as set forth in this section shall be void as contrary to public policy.” A signed mold disclosure is evidence of what was disclosed and acknowledged at signing; it is not a release. Drafting one as though the tenant is surrendering the warranty of habitability does not make it so, and a document that overreaches on this point is likely to be read less generously overall if it is ever put in front of a court.

Yes, and they are city rules rather than statewide disclosure law. New York City’s Asthma-Free Housing Act, adopted as Local Law 55 of 2018, places indoor allergen duties covering mold and pests on owners of multiple dwellings, and it is administered through the Department of Housing Preservation and Development rather than through any state lease requirement. Confirm the current text and any deadline directly against the New York City Administrative Code or with HPD before relying on a specific figure, and do not assume a city duty reaches a property upstate.

New York sets no statutory lookback period for mold, because it sets no disclosure duty at all — so whatever period you adopt is practice, not law, and should be described that way on the form. Landlords commonly disclose the most recent occurrence together with its remediation status and the contractor used. The better instinct is to disclose what you actually know rather than trim to a convenient window: a disclosure limited to twelve months is worth very little if the dispute turns on something just outside it. Keep the moisture-source repair records with the signed form.