Bed bug infestations in NYC rent-stabilized apartments persist for years because landlords exploit ambiguous responsibility laws and tenants cannot withhold rent during treatment

New York City has the highest density of bed bug infestations in the US, with roughly 1 in 15 apartments reporting Cimex lectularius in any given year, concentrated in rent-stabilized units in Upper Manhattan, the Bronx, and central Brooklyn. So what? Under NYC Local Law 69 (2017), landlords must disclose bed bug history, but only for the prior year, so buildings with chronic multi-year infestations appear clean on paper after a single year of non-reporting. So what? Treatment requires coordinated whole-building extermination — every unit, hallway, and common area simultaneously — but landlords in rent-stabilized buildings have a financial incentive to treat unit-by-unit (cheaper per visit) even though this guarantees reinfestation from adjacent untreated units within 2-6 weeks. So what? Tenants cannot legally withhold rent during an active infestation under NY Real Property Law unless they obtain an HP action through Housing Court, which has a median wait time of 4-7 months, during which the infestation spreads to furniture, clothing, and mattresses, often causing $2,000-5,000 in personal property losses. So what? Tenants in low-income rent-stabilized units often cannot afford to replace infested furniture and mattresses, so they continue living with bed bugs, which causes documented psychological harm — insomnia, anxiety, and social isolation due to stigma. So what? The problem persists structurally because bed bug treatment costs ($1,000-3,000 per unit for heat treatment) exceed the annual profit margin on many rent-stabilized units, creating a rational economic incentive for landlords to do the minimum (cheap chemical spray, single unit) rather than the effective treatment (whole-building heat treatment). HPD enforcement is complaint-driven with no proactive inspection regime, and penalties for non-treatment ($250-$500 per violation) are lower than treatment costs, making non-compliance the economically rational choice.