N-CSR

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM N-CSR

CERTIFIED SHAREHOLDER REPORT OF REGISTERED MANAGEMENT

INVESTMENT COMPANIES

Investment Company Act file number: 811-10503

Name of Fund:  BlackRock New York Municipal 2018 Term Trust (BLH)

Fund Address:    100 Bellevue Parkway, Wilmington, DE 19809

Name and address of agent for service:  John M. Perlowski, Chief Executive Officer, BlackRock New York Municipal

2018 Term Trust, 55 East 52^nd Street, New York, NY 10055

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (800) 882-0052, Option 4

Date of fiscal year end: 12/31/2015

Date of reporting period: 12/31/2015

Item 1 – Report to Stockholders

DECEMBER 31, 2015

  ANNUAL REPORT

BlackRock California Municipal 2018 Term Trust (BJZ)

BlackRock Municipal 2018 Term Trust (BPK)

BlackRock New York Municipal 2018 Term Trust (BLH)

Not FDIC Insured • May Lose Value • No Bank Guarantee

Table of Contents

	Page
The Markets in Review		3
Annual Report:
Municipal Market Overview		4
The Benefits and Risks of Leveraging		5
Trust Summaries		6
Financial Statements:
Schedules of Investments		12
Statements of Assets and Liabilities		21
Statements of Operations		22
Statements of Changes in Net Assets		23
Financial Highlights		24
Notes to Financial Statements		27
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm		36
Automatic Dividend Reinvestment Plan		37
Officers and Trustees		38
Additional Information		41

2 ANNUAL REPORT DECEMBER 31, 2015

The Markets in Review

Dear Shareholder,

Diverging monetary policies and shifting economic outlooks across regions have been the overarching themes driving financial markets over the past couple of years. With U.S. growth outpacing the global economic recovery in 2015 while inflationary pressures remained low, investors spent most of the year anticipating a short-term rate hike from the Federal Reserve (the “Fed”), which ultimately came to fruition in December. In contrast, the European Central Bank (“ECB”) and the Bank of Japan moved to a more accommodative stance during the year. In this environment, the U.S. dollar strengthened considerably, causing profit challenges for U.S. exporters and high levels of volatility in emerging market currencies and commodities. Oil prices were particularly volatile and below the historical norm due to an ongoing imbalance in global supply and demand.

Market volatility broadly increased in the middle of 2015, beginning with a sharp, but temporary, selloff in June as Greece’s long-brewing debt troubles came to an impasse. Just as these concerns abated, Chinese equities tumbled amid weakness in the country’s economy. This, combined with a depreciation of the yuan and declining confidence in China’s policymakers, stoked worries about the potential impact to the broader world economy, causing heightened volatility to spread throughout markets globally. Given a dearth of meaningful growth across most of the world, financial markets became more reliant on central bank policies to drive performance. In that vein, risk assets (such as equities and high yield bonds) rallied in October when China’s central bank provided more stimulus, the ECB hinted at further easing, and soft U.S. data pushed back expectations for a Fed rate hike. As the period came to a close, however, the ECB disappointed investors with its subdued policy changes. The Fed’s December rate hike had a positive impact on the markets as it removed a source of uncertainty, but this was counteracted by the dampening effect of a stronger U.S. dollar, falling oil prices and tighter credit conditions.

At BlackRock, we believe investors need to think globally, extend their scope across a broad array of asset classes and be prepared to move freely as market conditions change over time. We encourage you to talk with your financial advisor and visit blackrock.com for further insight about investing in today’s markets.

Sincerely,

Rob Kapito

President, BlackRock Advisors, LLC

Rob Kapito

President, BlackRock Advisors, LLC

Total Returns as of December 31, 2015
	6-month			12-month
U.S. large cap equities (S&P 500® Index)		0.15	%		1.38	%
U.S. small cap equities (Russell 2000® Index)		(8.75	)		(4.41	)
International equities (MSCI Europe, Australasia, Far East Index)		(6.01	)		(0.81	)
Emerging market equities (MSCI Emerging Markets Index)		(17.35	)		(14.92	)
3-month Treasury bills (BofA Merrill Lynch 3-Month U.S. Treasury Bill Index)		0.04			0.05
U.S. Treasury securities (BofA Merrill Lynch 10-Year U.S. Treasury Index)		1.43			0.91
U.S. investment-grade bonds (Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index)		0.65			0.55
Tax-exempt municipal bonds (S&P Municipal Bond Index)		3.31			3.32
U.S. high yield bonds (Barclays U.S. Corporate High Yield 2% Issuer Capped Index)		(6.79	)		(4.43	)
Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Index performance is shown for illustrative purposes only. You cannot invest directly in an index.

THIS PAGE NOT PART OF YOUR FUND REPORT 3

Municipal Market Overview

For the Reporting Period Ended December 31, 2015

Municipal Market Conditions

Municipal bonds generated positive performance for the period, due to a favorable supply-and-demand environment. Interest rates were volatile in 2015 (bond prices rise as rates fall) leading up to a long-awaited rate hike from the U.S. Federal Reserve (the “Fed”) that ultimately came in December. However, reassurance from the Fed throughout the year that rate hikes would be gradual and rates would likely remain low overall resulted in strong demand for fixed income investments, with municipal bonds being one of the strongest-performing sectors for the year. Bouts of volatility during the period resulted from uneven U.S. economic data, falling oil prices, global growth concerns, geopolitical risks, and widening central bank divergence — i.e., policy easing outside the United States while the Fed was posturing to commence policy tightening. During the 12 months ended December 31, 2015, municipal bond funds garnered net inflows of approximately $15 billion (based on data from the Investment Company Institute).

For the same 12-month period, total new issuance remained relatively strong from a historical perspective at $398 billion (considerably higher than the $334 billion issued in the prior 12-month period). A noteworthy portion of new supply during this period was attributable to refinancing activity (roughly 55%) as issuers took advantage of low interest rates and a flatter yield curve to reduce their borrowing costs.

S&P Municipal Bond Index

Total Returns as of December 31, 2015

  6 months: 3.31%

12 months: 3.32%

A Closer Look at Yields

From December 31, 2014 to December 31, 2015, yields on AAA-rated 30-year municipal bonds fell by 4 basis points (“bps”) from 2.86% to 2.82%, while 10-year rates fell by 12 bps from 2.04% to 1.92% and 5-year rates decreased 6 bps from 1.32% to 1.26% (as measured by Thomson Municipal Market Data). The municipal yield curve experienced significant flattening over the 12-month period with the spread between 2- and 30-year maturities flattening by 33 bps and the spread between 2- and 10-year maturities flattening by 41 bps.

During the same time period, U.S. Treasury rates increased by 26 bps on 30-year bonds, 10 bps on 10-year bonds and 11 bps on 5-year bonds. Accordingly, tax-exempt municipal bonds outperformed Treasuries, most notably in the long-end of the curve as a result of manageable supply and robust demand. In absolute terms, the positive performance of muni bonds was driven largely by a supply/demand imbalance within the municipal market as investors sought income and incremental yield in an environment where opportunities had become scarce. More broadly, municipal bonds benefited from the greater appeal of tax-exempt investing in light of the higher tax rates implemented in 2014. The asset class is known for its lower relative volatility and preservation of principal with an emphasis on income as tax rates rise.

Financial Conditions of Municipal Issuers

The majority of municipal credits remain strong, despite well-publicized distress among a few issuers. Four of the five states with the largest amount of debt outstanding — California, New York, Texas and Florida — have exhibited markedly improved credit fundamentals during the slow national recovery. However, several states with the largest unfunded pension liabilities have seen their bond prices decline noticeably and remain vulnerable to additional price deterioration. On the local level, Chicago’s credit quality downgrade is an outlier relative to other cities due to its larger pension liability and inadequate funding remedies. BlackRock maintains the view that municipal bond defaults will remain minimal and in the periphery while the overall market is fundamentally sound. We continue to advocate careful credit research and believe that a thoughtful approach to structure and security selection remain imperative amid uncertainty in a modestly improving economic environment.

The opinions expressed are those of BlackRock as of December 31, 2015, and are subject to change at any time due to changes in market or economic conditions. The comments should not be construed as a recommendation of any individual holdings or market sectors. Investing involves risk including loss of principal. Bond values fluctuate in price so the value of your investment can go down depending on market conditions. Fixed income risks include interest-rate and credit risk. Typically, when interest rates rise, there is a corresponding decline in bond values. Credit risk refers to the possibility that the bond issuer will not be able to make principal and interest payments. There may be less information on the financial condition of municipal issuers than for public corporations. The market for municipal bonds may be less liquid than for taxable bonds. Some investors may be subject to Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Capital gains distributions, if any, are taxable.

The Standard & Poor’s Municipal Bond Index, a broad, market value-weighted index, seeks to measure the performance of the US municipal bond market. All bonds in the index are exempt from US federal income taxes or subject to the alternative minimum tax. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Index performance is shown for illustrative purposes only. It is not possible to invest directly in an index.

4 ANNUAL REPORT DECEMBER 31, 2015

The Benefits and Risks of Leveraging

The Trusts may utilize leverage to seek to enhance the distribution rate on, and net asset value (“NAV”) of, their common shares (“Common Shares”). However, these objectives cannot be achieved in all interest rate environments.

In general, the concept of leveraging is based on the premise that the financing cost of leverage, which is based on short-term interest rates, is normally lower than the income earned by a Trust on its longer-term portfolio investments purchased with the proceeds from leverage. To the extent that the total assets of the Trusts (including the assets obtained from leverage) are invested in higher-yielding portfolio investments, the Trusts’ shareholders benefit from the incremental net income. The interest earned on securities purchased with the proceeds from leverage is paid to shareholders in the form of dividends, and the value of these portfolio holdings is reflected in the per share NAV.

To illustrate these concepts, assume a Trust’s Common Shares capitalization is $100 million and it utilizes leverage for an additional $30 million, creating a total value of $130 million available for investment in longer-term income securities. If prevailing short-term interest rates are 3% and longer-term interest rates are 6%, the yield curve has a strongly positive slope. In this case, a Trust’s financing costs on the $30 million of proceeds obtained from leverage are based on the lower short-term interest rates. At the same time, the securities purchased by a Trust with the proceeds from leverage earn income based on longer-term interest rates. In this case, a Trust’s financing cost of leverage is significantly lower than the income earned on a Trust’s longer-term investments acquired from leverage proceeds, and therefore the holders of Common Shares (“Common Shareholders”) are the beneficiaries of the incremental net income.

However, in order to benefit Common Shareholders, the return on assets purchased with leverage proceeds must exceed the ongoing costs associated with the leverage. If interest and other costs of leverage exceed the Trusts’ return on assets purchased with leverage proceeds, income to shareholders is lower than if the Trusts had not used leverage. Furthermore, the value of the Trusts’ portfolio investments generally varies inversely with the direction of long-term interest rates, although other factors can influence the value of portfolio investments. In contrast, the value of the Trusts’ obligations under their respective leverage arrangements generally does not fluctuate in relation to interest rates. As a result, changes in interest rates can influence the Trusts’ NAVs positively or negatively. Changes in the future

direction of interest rates are very difficult to predict accurately, and there is no assurance that a Trust’s intended leveraging strategy will be successful.

Leverage also generally causes greater changes in the Trusts’ NAVs, market prices and dividend rates than comparable portfolios without leverage. In a declining market, leverage is likely to cause a greater decline in the net asset value and market price of a Trust’s Common Shares than if the Trusts were not leveraged. In addition, the Trusts may be required to sell portfolio securities at inopportune times or at distressed values in order to comply with regulatory requirements applicable to the use of leverage or as required by the terms of leverage instruments, which may cause the Trusts to incur losses. The use of leverage may limit a Trust’s ability to invest in certain types of securities or use certain types of hedging strategies. The Trusts incur expenses in connection with the use of leverage, all of which are borne by Common Shareholders and may reduce income to the Common Shares. Moreover, to the extent the calculation of the Trusts’ investment advisory fees includes assets purchased with the proceeds of leverage, the investment advisory fees payable to the Trusts’ investment advisor will be higher than if the Trusts did not use leverage.

To obtain leverage, each Trust had previously issued Auction Market Preferred Shares (“AMPS” or “Preferred Shares”) and/or has leveraged its assets through the use of tender option bond trusts (“TOB Trusts”) as described in the Notes to Financial Statements.

Under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), each Trust is permitted to issue debt up to 33 ¹/₃% of its total managed assets or equity securities (e.g., Preferred Shares) up to 50% of its total managed assets. A Trust may voluntarily elect to limit its leverage to less than the maximum amount permitted under the 1940 Act. In addition, a Trust may also be subject to certain asset coverage, leverage or portfolio composition requirements imposed by the Preferred Shares’ governing instruments or by agencies rating the Preferred Shares, which may be more stringent than those imposed by the 1940 Act.

If a Trust segregates or designates on its books and records cash or liquid assets having a value not less than the value of a Trust’s obligations under the TOB Trust (including accrued interest), a TOB Trust is not considered a senior security and is not subject to the foregoing limitations and requirements under the 1940 Act.

ANNUAL REPORT DECEMBER 31, 2015 5

Trust Summary as of December 31, 2015 BlackRock California Municipal 2018 Term Trust

Trust Overview

BlackRock California Municipal 2018 Term Trust’s (BJZ) (the “Trust”) investment objectives seek to provide current income exempt from regular federal and California income taxes and to return $15 per common share to holders of common shares on or about December 31, 2018. The Trust seeks to achieve its investment objectives by investing, under normal market conditions, at least 80% of its total assets in municipal bonds that at the time of investment are investment grade quality.

No assurance can be given that the Trust’s investment objective will be achieved.

Trust Information

Symbol on New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”)	BJZ
Initial Offering Date	October 26, 2001
Termination Date (on or about)	December 31, 2018
Yield on Closing Market Price as of December 31, 2015 ($15.05)1	2.21%
Tax Equivalent Yield2	4.50%
Current Monthly Distribution per Common Share3	$0.0277
Current Annualized Distribution per Common Share3	$0.3324
Economic Leverage as of December 31, 2015	—

¹  Yield on closing market price is calculated by dividing the current annualized distribution per share by the closing market price. Past performance does not guarantee future results.

²  Tax equivalent yield assumes the maximum marginal federal and state tax rate of 50.93%, which includes the 3.8% Medicare tax. Actual tax rates will vary based on income, exemptions and deductions. Lower taxes will result in lower tax equivalent yields.

³  The distribution rate is not constant and is subject to change.

Performance

Returns for the 12 months ended December 31, 2015 were as follows:

	Returns Based On
	Market Price			NAV
BJZ1,2		1.24	%		1.52	%
Lipper California Municipal Debt Funds3		9.93	%		6.12	%

¹  All returns reflect reinvestment of dividends and/or distributions.

²  The Trust’s discount to NAV, which widened during the period, accounts for the difference between performance based on price and performance based on NAV.

³  Average return.

The following discussion relates to the Trust’s absolute performance based on NAV:

• The Trust is scheduled to terminate on or about December 31, 2018, and it therefore holds securities that will mature close to that date. As rates declined more on the long end of the yield curve, the Trust’s shorter maturity profile was a disadvantage in comparison to its Lipper category peers, which typically hold longer-dated securities.

• Short-term bonds priced in a modest rise in interest rates during 2015, reflecting the U.S. Federal Reserve’s decision to initiate a liftoff from its zero interest rate policy in December. (Prices fall as yields rise). This was a modest headwind to performance due to the Trust’s exposure to shorter-maturity bonds near its termination date of December 31, 2018. The Trust’s duration (sensitivity to interest rate movements) continues to decline as 2018 approaches, which reduces the portfolio’s sensitivity to interest rate fluctuations.

• Nearly every position in the Trust declined in value during the period given the relative weakness of bonds with one- to five-year maturities, with yields on one- to three-year issues rising more than those with maturities of five years and longer. The Trust’s total return was stable despite this trend, as income generated from coupon payments on the Trust’s portfolio of tax-exempt bonds more than offset the price declines.

• California development districts, utilities and tax-backed state debt made the largest contributions to total returns at the sector level. In addition, the tightening of credit spreads benefited the Trust’s holdings in lower-rated investment grade and below investment grade bonds. The investment advisor maintained a fully invested portfolio, which helped maximize the income component of total return.

The views expressed reflect the opinions of BlackRock as of the date of this report and are subject to change based on changes in market, economic or other conditions. These views are not intended to be a forecast of future events and are no guarantee of future results.

6 ANNUAL REPORT DECEMBER 31, 2015

BlackRock California Municipal 2018 Term Trust

Market Price and Net Asset Value Per Share Summary

	12/31/15		12/31/14		Change			High		Low
Market Price	$	15.05	$	15.24		(1.25	)%	$	15.70	$	14.76
Net Asset Value	$	15.15	$	15.30		(0.98	)%	$	15.42	$	15.12

Market Price and Net Asset Value History For the Past Five Years

Overview of the Trust’s Total Investments*

Sector Allocation	12/31/15			12/31/14
Utilities		28	%		24	%
County/City/Special District/School District		21			24
State		17			15
Health		12			11
Education		10			9
Transportation		7			10
Corporate		4			5
Housing		1			2

Call/Maturity Schedule3
Calendar Year Ended December 31,
2016	14	%
2017	5
2018	46
2019	20
2020	—

³  Scheduled maturity dates and/or bonds that are subject to potential calls by issuers over the next five years.

* Excludes short-term securities.

Credit Quality Allocation1	12/31/15			12/31/14
AAA/Aaa		2	%		2	%
AA/Aa		67			72
A		18			16
BBB/Baa		7			8
N/R2		6			2

¹  For financial reporting purposes, credit quality ratings shown above reflect the highest rating assigned by either Standard & Poor’s (“S&P”) or Moody’s Investors Service (“Moody’s”) if ratings differ. These rating agencies are independent, nationally recognized statistical rating organizations and are widely used. Investment grade ratings are credit ratings of BBB/Baa or higher. Below investment grade ratings are credit ratings of BB/Ba or lower. Investments designated N/R are not rated by either rating agency. Unrated investments do not necessarily indicate low credit quality. Credit quality ratings are subject to change.

²  The investment advisor evaluates the credit quality of unrated investments based upon certain factors including, but not limited to, credit ratings for similar investments and financial analysis of sectors and individual investments. Using this approach, the investment advisor has deemed certain of these unrated securities as investment grade quality. As of December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, the market value of unrated securities deemed by the investment advisor to be investment grade represents 4% and less than 1%, respectively, of the Trust’s total investments.

ANNUAL REPORT DECEMBER 31, 2015 7

Trust Summary as of December 31, 2015 BlackRock Municipal 2018 Term Trust

Trust Overview

BlackRock Municipal 2018 Term Trust’s (BPK) (the “Trust”) investment objectives seek to provide current income exempt from regular federal income tax and to return $15 per common share (the initial offering price per common share) to holders of common shares on or about December 31, 2018. The Trust seeks to achieve its investment objectives by investing, under normal market conditions, its assets in municipal bonds exempt from federal income taxes (except that the interest may be subject to the federal alternative minimum tax). The Trust invests at least 80% of its assets in municipal bonds that are investment grade quality at the time of investment.

No assurance can be given that the Trust’s investment objective will be achieved.

Trust Information

Symbol on NYSE	BPK
Initial Offering Date	October 26, 2001
Termination Date (on or about)	December 31, 2018
Yield on Closing Market Price as of December 31, 2015 ($15.50)1	3.64%
Tax Equivalent Yield2	6.43%
Current Monthly Distribution per Common Share3	$0.047
Current Annualized Distribution per Common Share3	$0.564
Economic Leverage as of December 31, 20154	2%

¹  Yield on closing market price is calculated by dividing the current annualized distribution per share by the closing market price. Past performance does not guarantee future results.

²  Tax equivalent yield assumes the maximum marginal federal tax rate of 43.4%, which includes the 3.8% Medicare tax. Actual tax rates will vary based on income, exemptions and deductions. Lower taxes will result in lower tax equivalent yields.

³  The distribution rate is not constant and is subject to change.

⁴  Represents TOB Trusts as a percentage of total managed assets, which is the total assets of the Trust, including any assets attributable to TOB Trusts, minus the sum of accrued liabilities. For a discussion of leveraging techniques utilized by the Trust, please see The Benefits and Risks of Leveraging on page 5.

Performance

Returns for the 12 months ended December 31, 2015 were as follows:

	Returns Based On
	Market Price			NAV
BPK1,2		(0.18	)%		1.11	%
Lipper Intermediate Municipal Debt Funds3		6.56	%		4.14	%

¹  All returns reflect reinvestment of dividends and/or distributions.

² The Trust’s premium to NAV, which narrowed during the period, accounts for the difference between performance based on price and performance based on NAV.

³  Average return.

The following discussion relates to the Trust’s absolute performance based on NAV:

• The Trust is scheduled to terminate on or about December 31, 2018, and it therefore holds securities that will mature close to that date. As rates declined more on the long end of the yield curve, the Trust’s shorter maturity profile was a disadvantage in comparison to its Lipper category peers, which typically hold longer-dated securities.

• Short-term bonds priced in a modest rise in interest rates during 2015, reflecting the U.S. Federal Reserve’s decision to initiate a liftoff from its zero interest rate policy in December. (Prices fall as yields rise). This was a modest headwind to performance due to the Trust’s exposure to shorter-maturity bonds near its termination date of December 31, 2018. The Trust’s duration (sensitivity to interest rate movements) continues to decline as 2018 approaches, which reduces the portfolio’s sensitivity to interest rate fluctuations.

• Nearly every position in the Trust declined in value during the period given the relative weakness of bonds with one- to five-year maturities. Yields on one- to three-year issues rose more than those with maturities of five years and longer. The Trust’s total return was stable despite this trend, as income generated from coupon payments on the Trust’s portfolio of tax-exempt bonds more than offset the price declines.

• Transportation and tax-backed state debt made the largest contribution to total returns at the sector level. In addition, the tightening of credit spreads benefited the Trust’s holdings in lower-rated investment grade and below investment grade bonds. The investment advisor maintained a fully invested portfolio, which helped maximize the income component of total return.

The views expressed reflect the opinions of BlackRock as of the date of this report and are subject to change based on changes in market, economic or other conditions. These views are not intended to be a forecast of future events and are no guarantee of future results.

8 ANNUAL REPORT DECEMBER 31, 2015

BlackRock Municipal 2018 Term Trust

Market Price and Net Asset Value Per Share Summary

	12/31/15		12/31/14		Change			High		Low
Market Price	$	15.50	$	16.13		(3.91	)%	$	16.28	$	15.13
Net Asset Value	$	15.34	$	15.76		(2.66	)%	$	15.85	$	15.33

Market Price and Net Asset Value History For the Past Five Years

Overview of the Trust’s Total Investments*

Sector Allocation	12/31/15			12/31/14
County/City/Special District/School District		23	%		17	%
Transportation		16			19
Health		14			11
Corporate		12			9
Utilities		11			8
State		11			21
Education		8			9
Housing		5			6

Call/Maturity Schedule4
Calendar Year Ended December 31,
2016	5	%
2017	9
2018	61
2019	12
2020	1

⁴  Scheduled maturity dates and/or bonds that are subject to potential calls by issuers over the next five years.

* Excludes short-term securities.

Credit Quality Allocation1	12/31/15			12/31/142
AAA/Aaa		6	%		9	%
AA/Aa		27			22
A		37			42
BBB/Baa		15			13
BB/Ba		1			5
N/R3		14			9

¹  For financial reporting purposes, credit quality ratings shown above reflect the highest rating assigned by either S&P or Moody’s if ratings differ. These rating agencies are independent, nationally recognized statistical rating organizations and are widely used. Investment grade ratings are credit ratings of BBB/Baa or higher. Below investment grade ratings are credit ratings of BB/Ba or lower. Investments designated N/R are not rated by either rating agency. Unrated investments do not necessarily indicate low credit quality. Credit quality ratings are subject to change.

²  Information has been revised to conform to current year presentation.

³  The investment advisor evaluates the credit quality of unrated investments based upon certain factors including, but not limited to, credit ratings for similar investments and financial analysis of sectors and individual investments. Using this approach, the investment advisor has deemed certain of these unrated securities as investment grade quality. As of December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014 the market value of unrated securities deemed by the investment advisor to be investment grade represents 8% and 6%, respectively, of the Trust’s total investments.

ANNUAL REPORT DECEMBER 31, 2015 9

Trust Summary as of December 31, 2015 BlackRock New York Municipal 2018 Term Trust

Trust Overview

BlackRock New York Municipal 2018 Term Trust’s (BLH) (the “Trust”) investment objectives seek to provide current income exempt from regular federal income tax and New York State and New York City personal income taxes and to return $15 per common share (the initial offering price per common share) to holders of common shares on or about December 31, 2018. The Trust seeks to achieve its investment objectives by investing at least 80% of its total assets in municipal bonds that at the time of investment are investment grade quality.

No assurance can be given that the Trust’s investment objective will be achieved.

Trust Information

Symbol on NYSE	BLH
Initial Offering Date	October 26, 2001
Termination Date (on or about)	December 31, 2018
Yield on Closing Market Price as of December 31, 2015 ($14.94)1	2.06%
Tax Equivalent Yield2	4.17%
Current Monthly Distribution per Common Share3	$0.0256
Current Annualized Distribution per Common Share3	$0.3072
Economic Leverage as of December 31, 2015	—

¹  Yield on closing market price is calculated by dividing the current annualized distribution per share by the closing market price. Past performance does not guarantee future results.

²  Tax equivalent yield assumes the maximum marginal federal and state tax rate of 50.59%, which includes the 3.8% Medicare tax. Actual tax rates will vary based on income, exemptions and deductions. Lower taxes will result in lower tax equivalent yields.

³  The distribution rate is not constant and is subject to change.

Performance

Returns for the 12 months ended December 31, 2015 were as follows:

	Returns Based On
	Market Price			NAV
BLH1,2		2.16	%		1.29	%
Lipper New York Municipal Debt Funds3		9.33	%		5.37	%

¹  All returns reflect reinvestment of dividends and/or distributions.

² The Trust’s discount to NAV, which narrowed during the period, accounts for the difference between performance based on price and performance based on NAV.

³  Average return.

The following discussion relates to the Trust’s absolute performance based on NAV:

• The Trust is scheduled to terminate on or about December 31, 2018, and it therefore holds securities that will mature close to that date. As rates declined more on the long end of the yield curve, the Trust’s shorter maturity profile was a disadvantage in comparison to its Lipper category peers, which typically hold longer-dated securities.

• Short-term bonds priced in a modest rise in interest rates during 2015, reflecting the U.S. Federal Reserve’s decision to initiate a liftoff from its zero interest rate policy in December. (Prices fall as yields rise). This was a modest headwind to performance due to the Trust’s exposure to shorter-maturity bonds near its termination date of December 31, 2018. The Trust’s duration (sensitivity to interest rate movements) continues to decline as 2018 approaches, which reduces the portfolio’s sensitivity to interest rate fluctuations.

• Nearly every position in the Trust declined in value during the period given the relative weakness of bonds with one- to five-year maturities, with yields on one- to three-year issues rising more than those with maturities of five years and longer. The Trust’s total return was stable, however, as income generated from coupon payments on the Trust’s portfolio of tax-exempt bonds more than offset the price declines.

• New York tax-backed state and local debt made the largest contribution to total returns at the sector level. In addition, the tightening of credit spreads benefited the Trust’s holdings in lower-rated investment grade and below investment grade bonds. The investment advisor maintained a fully invested portfolio, which helped maximize the income component of total return. As a result of the AMPS redemption on March 18, 2015, the Trust is no longer leveraged.

The views expressed reflect the opinions of BlackRock as of the date of this report and are subject to change based on changes in market, economic or other conditions. These views are not intended to be a forecast of future events and are no guarantee of future results.

10 ANNUAL REPORT DECEMBER 31, 2015

BlackRock New York Municipal 2018 Term Trust

Market Price and Net Asset Value Per Share Summary

	12/31/15		12/31/14		Change			High		Low
Market Price	$	14.94	$	14.95		(0.07	)%	$	15.19	$	14.65
Net Asset Value	$	15.08	$	15.21		(0.85	)%	$	15.38	$	15.05

Market Price and Net Asset Value History For the Past Five Years

Overview of the Trust’s Total Investments*

Sector Allocation	12/31/15			12/31/14
County/City/Special District/School District		38	%		37	%
Transportation		19			19
State		11			10
Education		11			17
Utilities		7			6
Health		7			3
Housing		3			6
Corporate		3			2
Tobacco		1			—

Call/Maturity Schedule3
Calendar Year Ended December 31,
2016	1	%
2017	3
2018	61
2019	11
2020	22

³ Scheduled maturity dates and/or bonds that are subject to potential calls by issuers over the next five years.

* Excludes short-term securities.

Credit Quality Allocation1	12/31/15			12/31/14
AAA/Aaa		15	%		17	%
AA/Aa		62			58
A		10			11
BBB/Baa		5			8
N/R		8	2		6

¹  For financial reporting purposes, credit quality ratings shown above reflect the highest rating assigned by either S&P or Moody’s if ratings differ. These rating agencies are independent, nationally recognized statistical rating organizations and are widely used. Investment grade ratings are credit ratings of BBB/Baa or higher. Below investment grade ratings are credit ratings of BB/Ba or lower. Investments designated N/R are not rated by either rating agency. Unrated investments do not necessarily indicate low credit quality. Credit quality ratings are subject to change.

²  The investment advisor evaluates the credit quality of unrated investments based upon certain factors including, but not limited to, credit ratings for similar investments and financial analysis of sectors and individual investments. Using this approach, the investment advisor has deemed certain of these unrated securities as investment grade quality. As of December 31, 2015 the market value of unrated securities deemed by the investment advisor to be investment grade represents 1% of the Trust’s total investments.

ANNUAL REPORT DECEMBER 31, 2015 11

Schedule of Investments December 31, 2015 BlackRock California Municipal 2018 Term Trust (BJZ) (Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)

Municipal Bonds	Par   (000)		Value
California — 95.6%
Corporate — 4.4%
California Pollution Control Financing Authority, RB, Mandatory Put Bonds, Republic Services, Inc. Project, Series B, AMT, 5.25%, 6/01/23 (a)	$	2,020	$	2,166,834
California Pollution Control Financing Authority, Refunding RB, Mandatory Put Bonds, Republic Services, Inc. Project, Series C, AMT, 5.25%, 6/01/23 (a)		2,030		2,148,958
				4,315,792
County/City/Special District/School District — 20.2%
City & County of San Francisco California, GO, Refunding, Series R-1, 5.00%, 6/15/18		1,640		1,804,836
City of Vista California, COP, Refunding, Community Projects (NPFGC) (b):
4.75%, 5/01/17		1,115		1,175,031
5.00%, 5/01/17		1,000		1,057,150
Fontana Public Finance Authority California, Refunding, Tax Allocation Bonds, North Fontana Redevelopment Project, Series A (AGM), 5.25%, 9/01/18		3,395		3,390,926
Irvine Unified School District California, Refunding, Special Tax Bonds, Community Facilities District No. 86-1 (AGM), 5.25%, 9/01/18		5,000		5,495,500
Jurupa Public Financing Authority, Refunding, Special Tax Bonds, Series A, 4.00%, 9/01/18		380		405,278
Lathrop Financing Authority, RB, Water Supply Project, 5.80%, 6/01/21		470		479,593
Lodi Unified School District California, GO, Refunding (AGM), 4.00%, 8/01/18		1,000		1,075,370
Los Angeles Community College District California, GO, Election of 2001, Series E-1, 4.00%, 8/01/18		200		215,616
Los Angeles Unified School District California, GO, Election of 2004, Series H (AGM), 5.00%, 7/01/17 (b)		300		319,029
Los Banos Unified School District California, GO, Election of 2008 (AGM), 5.00%, 8/01/17 (b)		475		511,575
Oakland Unified School District/Alameda County, GO, Refunding, 5.00%, 8/01/18		900		976,716
San Marcos Unified School District California, GO, CAB (c):
0.00%, 8/01/17		385		377,762
0.00%, 8/01/18		500		480,755
Santa Clara Unified School District California, GO, Election of 2004, Series A, 5.00%, 7/01/18		1,690		1,860,031
				19,625,168
Education — 9.6%
California Municipal Finance Authority, Refunding RB, Series A:
3.00%, 1/01/17		425		428,978
3.00%, 1/01/18		440		445,469

Municipal Bonds	Par   (000)		Value
California (continued)
Education (continued)
California State University, Refunding RB, Series A, 5.00%, 11/01/18	$	900	$	1,002,438
State of California Public Works Board, Refunding RB, Trustees of the California State University, Series A, 5.00%, 10/01/17		2,415		2,412,005
University of California, Refunding RB:
General, Series AB, 5.00%, 5/15/19		2,500		2,829,250
Series S, 5.00%, 5/15/18 (d)		5		5,478
Series S, 5.00%, 5/15/18		1,995		2,190,271
				9,313,889
Health — 11.5%
California Health Facilities Financing Authority, RB:
Scripps Health, Series A, 5.00%, 10/01/18		750		830,940
Sutter Health, Series B, 5.00%, 8/15/19		1,430		1,629,557
California Health Facilities Financing Authority, Refunding RB:
Adventist Health System/West, Series A, 4.00%, 3/01/18		1,000		1,059,780
Sutter Health, Series D, 5.00%, 8/15/18		515		569,636
California Statewide Communities Development Authority, RB, Kaiser Permanente, Series E-1, 5.00%, 4/01/44 (a)		4,700		4,963,435
California Statewide Communities Development Authority, Refunding RB:
Episcopal Communities & Services, 5.00%, 5/15/18		300		325,278
Huntington Memorial Hospital, Series B, 5.00%, 7/01/18		500		547,955
County of Los Angeles California Redevelopment Authority, Refunding, Tax Allocation Bonds, South Gate Redevelopment Project No. 1 and Claremont Consolidated Redevelopment Project, Series A, 4.00%, 9/01/18		850		915,280
Union City Community Redevelopment Agency, Refunding, Tax Allocation Bonds, Series A, 4.00%, 10/01/18		350		378,056
				11,219,917
Housing — 1.4%
California HFA, RB, Series A (Fannie Mae):
3.20%, 8/01/18		440		460,473
3.50%, 2/01/19		845		895,438
				1,355,911
State — 14.7%
State of California, GO, Refunding:
5.00%, 9/01/18		5,900		6,518,261
5.00%, 11/01/20		20		20,081

Portfolio Abbreviations

AGC	Assured Guarantee Corp.	COP	Certificates of Participation	LRB	Lease Revenue Bonds
AGM	Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp.	EDA	Economic Development Authority	NPFGC	National Public Finance Guarantee Corp.
AMBAC	American Municipal Bond Assurance Corp.	GO	General Obligation Bonds	PSF-GTD	Permanent School Fund Guaranteed
AMT	Alternative Minimum Tax (subject to)	HFA	Housing Finance Agency	RB	Revenue Bonds
ARB	Airport Revenue Bonds	IDA	Industrial Development Authority	S/F	Single-Family
CAB	Capital Appreciation Bonds	ISD	Independent School District

See Notes to Financial Statements.

12 ANNUAL REPORT DECEMBER 31, 2015

Schedule of Investments (continued) BlackRock California Municipal 2018 Term Trust (BJZ)

Municipal Bonds	Par   (000)		Value
California (continued)
State (continued)
State of California, GO, Refunding (continued):
Various Purpose, 5.25%, 10/01/22	$	4,000	$	4,947,840
Veterans, Series BZ, AMT (NPFGC), 5.35%, 12/01/21		10		10,031
State of California, GO, Refunding Series A (d):
5.00%, 7/01/18		560		616,196
5.00%, 7/01/18		160		176,056
State of California Public Works Board, Refunding RB, California Community Colleges, Series A, 5.00%, 12/01/17		2,020		2,052,643
				14,341,108
Transportation — 6.8%
City of Long Beach California, RB, Series A, 5.00%, 5/15/18		500		548,445
Port of Oakland California, Refunding RB, Series O, AMT:
5.00%, 5/01/18		2,500		2,723,975
5.00%, 5/01/19		3,000		3,359,520
				6,631,940
Utilities — 27.0%
California State Department of Water Resources, Refunding RB:
Series H, 5.00%, 5/01/18 (b)		2,500		2,736,125
Series H, 5.00%, 5/01/22		1,000		1,093,180
Series L, 5.00%, 5/01/19		2,000		2,258,800
Series N, 5.00%, 5/01/19		3,500		3,952,900
City of Riverside California Sewer Revenue, Refunding RB, Series A, 4.00%, 8/01/18		1,000		1,075,110
City of San Francisco California Public Utilities Commission Water Revenue, Refunding RB, Series D, 3.00%, 11/01/18		2,000		2,113,140
City of Tulare California Sewer Revenue, Refunding RB (AGM), 4.00%, 11/15/18		315		340,594
County of Los Angeles California Sanitation Districts Financing Authority, Refunding RB, Series A, 3.00%, 10/01/18		3,000		3,173,220
Cucamonga Valley California Water District, Refunding RB, Series A (AGM):
4.00%, 9/01/18		325		350,318
3.00%, 9/01/19		375		399,319
4.00%, 9/01/19		325		357,701
Los Angeles California Department of Water & Power, RB, Series B, 5.00%, 7/01/18		600		661,620

Municipal Bonds	Par   (000)		Value
California (continued)
Utilities (continued)
Los Angeles California Department of Water & Power, Refunding RB, Power System, Series A, 5.00%, 7/01/19	$	2,500	$	2,836,625
Sacramento California Municipal Utility District, Refunding RB, Series X, 5.00%, 8/15/18		400		441,968
Southern California Public Power Authority, Refunding RB, Canyon Power, Series A, 4.00%, 7/01/18		685		735,964
Stockton East Water District California, COP, Refunding, Series B (NPFGC), 0.00%, 4/01/19 (c)		4,590		3,801,208
				26,327,792
Total Municipal Bonds in California				93,131,517
Guam — 0.3%
Utilities — 0.3%
Guam Power Authority, Refunding RB, Series A (AGM), 5.00%, 10/01/19		240		271,450
U.S. Virgin Islands — 2.0%
State — 2.0%
Virgin Islands Public Finance Authority, RB, Series A:
5.00%, 10/01/16		930		956,607
5.00%, 10/01/17		970		1,027,007
Total Municipal Bonds in U.S. Virgin Islands				1,983,614
Total Long-Term Investments (Cost — $92,081,524) — 97.9%				95,386,581
Short-Term Securities	Shares
BIF California Municipal Money Fund, 0.00% (e)(f)		1,076,590		1,076,590
Total Short-Term Securities (Cost — $1,076,590) — 1.1%				1,076,590
Total Investments (Cost — $93,158,114) — 99.0%				96,463,171
Other Assets Less Liabilities — 1.0%				971,676
Net Assets Applicable to Common Shares — 100.0%			$	97,434,847

Notes to Schedule of Investments

(a) Variable rate security. Rate as of period end.

(b) U.S. Government securities, held in escrow, are used to pay interest on this security, as well as to retire the bond in full at the date indicated, typically at a premium to par.

(c) Zero-coupon bond.

(d) Security is collateralized by municipal bonds or U.S. Treasury obligations.

See Notes to Financial Statements.

ANNUAL REPORT DECEMBER 31, 2015 13

Schedule of Investments (concluded) BlackRock California Municipal 2018 Term Trust (BJZ)

(e) During the year ended December 31, 2015, investments in issuers considered to be an affiliate of the Trust for purposes of Section 2(a)(3) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, were as follows:

Affiliate	Shares Held at December 31, 2014		Net Activity		Shares Held at December 31, 2015		Income
BIF California Municipal Money Fund		63,656		1,012,934		1,076,590		—

(f) Current yield as of period end.

For Trust compliance purposes, the Trust’s sector classifications refer to one or more widely recognized market indexes or rating group indexes as defined by the investment advisor. These definitions may not apply for purposes of this report, which may combine such sector sub-classifications for reporting ease.

Fair Value Hierarchy as of Period End

Various inputs are used in determining the fair value of investments. For information about the Trust’s policy regarding valuation of investments, refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the Trust’s investments categorized in the disclosure hierarchy:

	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3	Total
Assets:
Investments:
Long-Term Investments1		—	$	95,386,581	—	$	95,386,581
Short-Term Securities	$	1,076,590		—	—		1,076,590
Total	$	1,076,590	$	95,386,581	—	$	96,463,171
1    See above Schedule of Investments for values in each sector.

During the year ended December 31, 2015, there were no transfers between levels.

See Notes to Financial Statements.

14 ANNUAL REPORT DECEMBER 31, 2015

Schedule of Investments December 31, 2015 BlackRock Municipal 2018 Term Trust (BPK) (Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)

Municipal Bonds	Par   (000)		Value
Alabama — 0.2%
Alabama 21st Century Authority, Refunding RB, Series A, 5.00%, 6/01/18	$	500	$	543,845
Alaska — 2.6%
City of Valdez Alaska, Refunding RB, 5.00%, 1/01/18		6,000		6,429,480
California — 5.8%
California Health Facilities Financing Authority, RB, Sutter Health, Series B, 5.00%, 8/15/19		2,570		2,928,644
California Pollution Control Financing Authority, Refunding RB, Mandatory Put Bonds, Republic Services, Inc. Project, Series C, AMT, 5.25%, 6/01/23 (a)		4,055		4,292,623
Los Angeles Regional Airports Improvement Corp., Refunding RB, Facilities Lease, LAXFuel Corp., AMT:
5.00%, 1/01/17		450		469,386
5.00%, 1/01/18		930		1,002,707
Los Angeles Unified School District California, GO, Series I, 5.00%, 7/01/20		3,750		4,238,400
Oakland Unified School District/Alameda County, GO, Refunding, 5.00%, 8/01/18		1,000		1,085,240
				14,017,000
Colorado — 3.0%
Colorado Educational & Cultural Facilities Authority, Refunding RB, Peak to Peak Charter School, 4.00%, 8/15/18		175		185,848
Colorado Health Facilities Authority, Refunding RB, Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society Project:
4.00%, 12/01/17		515		535,631
4.00%, 12/01/18		540		569,236
Park Creek Metropolitan District Colorado, Refunding RB, Senior Limited Property Tax:
4.00%, 12/01/18		1,000		1,067,320
5.25%, 12/01/20		5,010		5,063,557
				7,421,592
Delaware — 0.3%
Delaware State Economic Development Authority, RB, State University Project, 5.00%, 10/01/18		735		807,684
Florida — 5.4%
City of Miami Beach Florida, RB, 5.00%, 9/01/18		875		963,191
County of Broward Florida Airport System Revenue, Refunding RB, Series P-1, AMT, 5.00%, 10/01/18		3,930		4,319,227
County of Broward Florida School Board, COP, Series A (AGM), 5.25%, 7/01/22		1,250		1,364,000
County of Indian River Florida School Board, COP, Refunding, Series A, 5.00%, 7/01/18		600		656,142
County of Miami-Dade Florida, Refunding RB, Series A, AMT, 5.00%, 10/01/18		2,000		2,198,080
Miami Beach Health Facilities Authority, Refunding RB, Mount Sinai Medical Center, 4.00%, 11/15/18		250		266,865
Miami-Dade County School Board Foundation, Inc., COP, Refunding Series A, 5.00%, 5/01/18		1,500		1,635,240
Pine Island Community Development District, RB, 5.30%, 11/01/10 (b)(c)		400		224,376
Stevens Plantation Community Development District, Special Assessment Bonds, Series B, 6.38%, 5/01/13 (b)(c)		2,270		1,588,887
				13,216,008

Municipal Bonds	Par   (000)		Value
Guam — 0.3%
Guam Power Authority, Refunding RB, Series A (AGM), 5.00%, 10/01/19	$	620	$	701,245
Hawaii — 0.2%
Hawaii State Department of Budget & Finance, Refunding RB, Special Purpose Senior Living Revenue, 5.00%, 11/15/18		370		397,284
Illinois — 9.4%
Chicago Transit Authority, Refunding RB, 5.00%, 6/01/18		1,000		1,073,440
City of Chicago Illinois, RB, General Airport, 3rd Lien, Series A (AMBAC):
5.00%, 1/01/19		5,000		5,000,000
5.00%, 1/01/20		3,000		3,000,000
Counties of Du Page & Will Illinois Community School District No. 204 Indian Prairie, GO, Refunding Series B, 3.00%, 12/30/18		1,935		2,028,015
Fox Valley Park District, GO, Series A, 5.00%, 12/15/18		1,725		1,916,786
Illinois Finance Authority, Refunding RB:
Central DuPage Health, Series B, 5.00%, 11/01/18		2,290		2,516,802
Peoples Gas Light and Coke Co. Project, Series B, 1.88%, 2/01/33 (a)		1,000		1,005,040
Rush University Medical Center, Series A, 5.00%, 11/15/18		1,000		1,102,850
State of Illinois, GO (AGM), 5.00%, 4/01/18		465		488,943
State of Illinois, RB, Build Illinois, Series B:
5.00%, 6/15/18 (d)		355		389,339
Unrefunded Balance, 5.00%, 6/15/18		1,645		1,792,441
State of Illinois, GO, Refunding, 5.00%, 8/01/18		2,500		2,657,400
				22,971,056
Indiana — 3.2%
City of Vincennes Indiana, Refunding RB, Southwest Indiana Regional Youth Village, 6.25%, 1/01/24		2,515		2,356,379
Indiana Finance Authority, RB, Ohio River Bridges East End Crossing Project, Series B, AMT, 5.00%, 1/01/19		1,715		1,782,108
Indiana State Municipal Power Agency, Refunding RB, Series A, 5.00%, 1/01/19		875		971,049
Indianapolis Airport Authority, Refunding RB, Special Facilities, FedEx Corp. Project, AMT, 5.10%, 1/15/17		2,500		2,605,375
				7,714,911
Iowa — 1.2%
Iowa Finance Authority, Refunding RB, Midwestern Disaster Area, Iowa Fertilizer Co. Project, 5.00%, 12/01/19		2,000		2,114,860
University of Iowa, Refunding RB, Series S, 5.00%, 11/01/18		655		727,089
				2,841,949
Kansas — 1.1%
Kansas Development Finance Authority, Refunding RB, Adventist Health, 5.00%, 11/15/18		2,500		2,768,325
Kentucky — 3.5%
County of Kenton Kentucky School District Finance Corp., Refunding RB, 2.50%, 6/01/18		3,210		3,310,505

See Notes to Financial Statements.

ANNUAL REPORT DECEMBER 31, 2015 15

Schedule of Investments (continued) BlackRock Municipal 2018 Term Trust (BPK)

Municipal Bonds	Par   (000)		Value
Kentucky (continued)
County of Louisville & Jefferson Kentucky Metropolitan Government, Refunding RB, Catholic Health Initiatives, Series A, 5.00%, 12/01/18	$	1,755	$	1,939,960
Kentucky Housing Corp., RB, S/F Housing, Series C, AMT, 4.63%, 7/01/22		3,195		3,228,132
				8,478,597
Maryland — 3.6%
Maryland Health & Higher Educational Facilities Authority, Refunding RB:
Charlestown Community, 5.00%, 1/01/19		1,685		1,791,964
Meritus Medical Center, 5.00%, 7/01/18		400		432,584
University of Maryland Medical System, 5.00%, 7/01/18		1,000		1,087,620
Maryland State Transportation Authority, Refunding RB, Baltimore/Washington Thurgood Marshall Airport Project, Series B, AMT, 5.00%, 3/01/19		5,000		5,543,550
				8,855,718
Michigan — 3.7%
Kalamazoo Hospital Finance Authority, Refunding RB, Bronson Methodist Hospital (AGM), 5.00%, 5/15/18		2,025		2,190,564
Michigan State Finance Authority, Refunding RB, AMT:
5.00%, 11/01/17		2,275		2,400,261
5.00%, 11/01/18		2,100		2,267,370
Michigan State Hospital Finance Authority, Refunding RB, Oakwood Obligation Group, Series A, 5.00%, 7/15/17 (e)		1,000		1,064,770
Michigan State Housing Development Authority, Refunding RB, Series B, 4.15%, 4/01/18		1,000		1,057,550
				8,980,515
Mississippi — 0.4%
Mississippi Development Bank, Refunding RB, 5.00%, 3/01/18		1,000		1,075,820
Missouri — 0.8%
City of Kansas City Missouri, Refunding ARB, AMT, Series A, 5.00%, 9/01/18		1,750		1,912,837
Nebraska — 1.7%
Central Plains Energy Project, RB, Gas Project (Project No. 3), 5.00%, 9/01/17		2,330		2,468,449
Public Power Generation Agency, RB, Whelan Energy Center, Series 2-A (AGC), 5.00%, 1/01/17 (e)		1,500		1,565,235
				4,033,684
Nevada — 4.2%
City of Las Vegas Nevada, Special Assessment Bonds, Summerlin Area, 5.35%, 6/01/17		885		893,124
County of Clark Nevada, Refunding, Special Assessment Bonds, Improvement District No. 142, Mountain’s Edge, 4.00%, 8/01/18		3,815		3,932,083
Director of the State of Nevada Department of Business & Industry, RB, Mandatory Put Bonds, Republic Services, Inc. Project, AMT, 5.63%, 12/01/26 (a)		5,120		5,512,960
				10,338,167

Municipal Bonds	Par   (000)		Value
New Jersey — 11.8%
New Jersey EDA, Refunding RB:
Cigarette Tax Revenue, 5.00%, 6/15/18	$	5,000	$	5,311,900
Lions Gate Project, 3.25%, 1/01/18		250		251,228
New Jersey EDA, Refunding, Special Assessment Bonds, Kapkowski Road Landfill Project, 5.50%, 4/01/16		960		967,450
New Jersey Educational Facilities Authority, RB, Seton Hall University, Series D, 5.00%, 7/01/18		320		348,038
New Jersey Educational Facilities Authority, Refunding RB, University of Medicine & Dentistry, Series B, 6.25%, 12/01/18 (d)		2,500		2,863,075
New Jersey Health Care Facilities Financing Authority, Refunding RB:
AHS Hospital Corp., 5.00%, 7/01/18		850		923,823
AtlantiCare Regional Medical Center, 5.00%, 7/01/17 (e)		1,500		1,593,750
Barnabas Health, Series A, 5.00%, 7/01/18		2,000		2,157,800
New Jersey State Housing & Mortgage Finance Agency, Refunding RB, S/F Housing, Series T, AMT, 4.55%, 10/01/22		1,770		1,813,046
New Jersey State Turnpike Authority, Refunding RB, Series G, 5.00%, 1/01/18		1,350		1,455,826
New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund Authority, RB:
Series B, 5.00%, 6/15/18		2,000		2,119,720
Transportation Program, Series AA, 5.00%, 6/15/18		2,000		2,119,720
Transportation System, Series A, 5.75%, 6/15/18		1,320		1,422,458
Transportation System, Series A (AMBAC), 5.75%, 6/15/18		2,070		2,237,877
Newark Housing Authority, RB, South Ward Police Facility (AGC), 4.50%, 12/01/18		2,785		2,931,352
South Jersey Transportation Authority LLC, Refunding RB, Series A, 5.00%, 11/01/20		200		221,562
				28,738,625
New York — 4.6%
City of New York New York Industrial Development Agency, ARB, American Airlines, Inc., JFK International Airport Project, AMT, Series B, 2.00%, 8/01/28 (a)		1,530		1,532,953
Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Refunding RB:
Series A, 5.00%, 11/15/18		1,000		1,111,240
Series F, 4.00%, 11/15/18		200		216,604
New York State Dormitory Authority, RB, General Purpose, Series A, 5.00%, 3/15/18		6,500		7,071,610
Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, ARB, JFK International Air Terminal LLC Project, 5.00%, 12/01/20		1,200		1,363,836
				11,296,243
North Carolina — 0.9%
North Carolina HFA, Refunding RB, Series 28-A, AMT, 4.65%, 7/01/23		2,170		2,210,731
North Dakota — 0.6%
North Dakota HFA, RB, S/F Housing, 1.15%, 1/01/18		1,425		1,425,000
Oklahoma — 0.4%
County of Canadian Oklahoma Educational Facilities Authority, RB, Mustang Public Schools Project, 4.00%, 9/01/18		1,000		1,065,350

See Notes to Financial Statements.

16 ANNUAL REPORT DECEMBER 31, 2015

Schedule of Investments (continued) BlackRock Municipal 2018 Term Trust (BPK)

Municipal Bonds	Par   (000)		Value
Pennsylvania — 11.4%
Altoona City Authority, Refunding RB, 5.25%, 11/01/18	$	2,500	$	2,763,425
Chester County Health & Education Facilities Authority, Refunding RB:
3.00%, 12/01/17		585		591,640
4.00%, 12/01/18		805		831,404
Cumberland County Municipal Authority, Refunding RB:
4.00%, 1/01/18		1,380		1,437,436
5.75%, 1/01/19 (d)		2,135		2,426,513
5.75%, 1/01/19		240		269,287
Lancaster Industrial Development Authority, Refunding RB, Garden Spot Village Project:
5.00%, 5/01/16		300		303,330
5.00%, 5/01/17		1,175		1,213,822
Montgomery County Industrial Development Authority, Refunding RB, 5.00%, 1/15/18		1,000		1,063,660
Pennsylvania Economic Development Financing Authority, RB:
Pennsylvania Bridges Finco LP, AMT, 5.00%, 12/31/18		2,100		2,311,575
University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, 5.00%, 3/15/18		750		815,197
Waste Management, Inc. Project, 1.55%, 12/01/33 (a)		5,000		4,996,250
Pennsylvania Economic Development Financing Authority, Refunding RB, Amtrak Project, Series A, AMT, 3.00%, 11/01/18		1,000		1,029,990
Pennsylvania Higher Educational Facilities Authority, RB, Shippensburg University Student Services, Inc., Student Housing Project:
4.00%, 10/01/17		275		284,743
4.00%, 10/01/18		560		586,589
Pennsylvania Higher Educational Facilities Authority, Refunding RB, Drexel University, Series A, 5.00%, 5/01/18		1,000		1,086,610
Pennsylvania IDA, Refunding RB, Economic Development, 5.00%, 7/01/18		1,500		1,638,030
Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, RB, Sub-Series A (AGC), 5.00%, 6/01/22		1,000		1,119,980
Philadelphia Gas Works Co., Refunding RB, 4.00%, 8/01/18		1,000		1,069,060
State Public School Building Authority, RB, Community College of Allegheny County Project (AGM), 5.00%, 7/15/18		900		978,957
West Chester Area School District, GO, Refunding, Series AA, 5.00%, 5/15/18		1,000		1,095,410
				27,912,908
Texas — 13.4%
Alliance Airport Authority Texas, Refunding RB, FedEx Corp. Project, AMT, 4.85%, 4/01/21		2,000		2,014,160
Birdville ISD Texas, GO, Refunding, CAB (PSF-GTD), 0.00%, 2/15/18 (f)		1,615		1,578,598
Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority, Refunding RB, Senior Lien, 5.75%, 1/01/18		750		817,627
City of Dallas Texas, GO, Refunding, 5.00%, 2/15/18		3,500		3,799,005
City of Dallas Texas, Refunding RB, Civic Center Convention Complex (AGC), 5.00%, 8/15/21		2,500		2,770,500

Municipal Bonds	Par   (000)		Value
Texas (continued)
City of Houston Texas, Refunding RB, Sub Lien, Series B, 5.00%, 7/01/18	$	1,000	$	1,091,500
Houston ISD Public Facilities Authority, RB, 5.00%, 9/15/18		5,000		5,520,600
Lower Colorado River Authority, Refunding RB, LCRA Transmission, Series B, 5.00%, 5/15/18		5,000		5,453,900
New Hope Cultural Education Facilities Corp., RB, Stephenville LLC Tarleton State University Project, Series A:
4.00%, 4/01/17		160		163,907
4.00%, 4/01/18		405		418,738
4.00%, 4/01/18		280		289,996
4.00%, 4/01/20		165		178,588
North Texas Tollway Authority, Refunding RB, Series C, 5.00%, 1/01/19		2,215		2,456,058
Tarrant County Cultural Education Facilities Finance Corp., Refunding RB, 5.00%, 11/15/18		1,195		1,288,999
Texas Municipal Gas Acquisition & Supply Corp. III, RB, 5.00%, 12/15/18		4,360		4,812,873
				32,655,049
U.S. Virgin Islands — 0.5%
Virgin Islands Public Finance Authority, Refunding RB, Senior Lien, Series B, 5.00%, 10/01/18		1,000		1,084,040
Virginia — 0.9%
City of Norfolk Virginia, Refunding RB, Water Revenue, 5.00%, 11/01/18		1,230		1,365,607
Virginia College Building Authority, Refunding RB, Series A, 5.00%, 7/01/18 (g)		785		834,039
				2,199,646
Washington — 1.5%
Energy Northwest, Refunding RB, Wind Project Revenue, 5.00%, 7/01/18		2,865		3,130,127
Washington Health Care Facilities Authority, Refunding RB, Providence Health & Services, Series B, 5.00%, 10/01/18		500		552,595
				3,682,722
Wisconsin — 1.9%
City of Franklin Wisconsin, RB, Waste Management, Inc. Project, AMT, 4.95%, 4/01/16		1,990		2,009,940
State of Wisconsin, Refunding RB, Series A, 5.00%, 5/01/18		1,000		1,093,230
Wisconsin Health & Educational Facilities Authority, Refunding RB, Froedtert & Community Health, Inc., 5.00%, 4/01/19		1,265		1,418,406
				4,521,576
Total Municipal Bonds — 98.5%				240,297,607
Municipal Bonds Transferred to Tender Option Bond Trusts (h) — 2.2%
Illinois — 2.2%
City of Chicago Illinois Waterworks, Refunding RB, 2nd Lien (AGM), 5.00%, 11/01/20		5,000		5,377,800
Total Long-Term Investments (Cost — $240,677,613) — 100.7%				245,675,407

See Notes to Financial Statements.

ANNUAL REPORT DECEMBER 31, 2015 17

Schedule of Investments (concluded) BlackRock Municipal 2018 Term Trust (BPK)

Short-Term Securities	Shares		Value
FFI Institutional Tax-Exempt Fund, 0.02% (i)(j)		69	$	69
Total Short-Term Securities (Cost — $69) — 0.0%				69
Total Investments (Cost — $240,677,682) — 100.7%				245,675,476
Other Assets Less Liabilities — 0.8%				2,085,039
Liability for TOB Trust Certificates, Including Interest Expense and Fees Payable — (1.5)%				(3,751,625	)
Net Assets Applicable to Common Shares — 100.0%			$	244,008,890

Notes to Schedule of Investments

(a) Variable rate security. Rate as of period end.

(b) Non-income producing security.

(c) Issuer filed for bankruptcy and/or is in default of interest payments.

(d) Security is collateralized by municipal bonds or U.S. Treasury obligations.

(e) U.S. Government securities, held in escrow, are used to pay interest on this security, as well as to retire the bond in full at the date indicated, typically at a premium to par.

(f) Zero-coupon bond.

(g) Security exempt from registration pursuant to Rule 144A under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. These securities may be resold in transactions exempt from registration to qualified institutional investors.

(h) Represent bonds transferred to a TOB Trust in exchange of cash and residual certificates received by the Trust. These bonds serve as collateral in a secured borrowing. See Note 4 of the Notes to Financial Statements for details.

(i) During the year ended December 31, 2015, investments in issuers considered to be an affiliate of the Trust for purposes of Section 2(a)(3) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, were as follows:

Affiliate	Shares Held at December 31, 2014		Net Activity			Shares Held at December 31, 2015		Income
FFI Institutional Tax-Exempt Fund		4,625,172		(4,625,103	)		69	$	11,107

(j) Current yield as of period end.

Fair Value Hierarchy as of Period End

Various inputs are used in determining the fair value of investments. For information about the Trust’s policy regarding valuation of investments, refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the Trust’s investments categorized in the disclosure hierarchy:

	Level 1		Level 2			Level 3	Total
Assets:
Investments:
Long-Term Investments1		—	$	245,675,407		—	$	245,675,407
Short-Term Securities	$	69		—		—		69
Total	$	69	$	245,675,407		—	$	245,675,476
1    See above Schedule of Investments for values in each state or political subdivision. The Trust may hold assets and/or liabilities in which the fair value approximates the carrying amount for financial statement purposes. As of period end, such assets and/or liabilities are categorized within the disclosure hierarchy as follows:
	Level 1		Level 2			Level 3	Total
Liabilities:
Bank overdraft		—	$	(875,020	)	—	$	(875,020	)
TOB Trust Certificates		—		(3,750,000	)	—		(3,750,000	)
Total		—	$	(4,625,020	)	—	$	(4,625,020	)

During the year ended December 31, 2015, there were no transfers between levels.

See Notes to Financial Statements.

18 ANNUAL REPORT DECEMBER 31, 2015

Schedule of Investments December 31, 2015 BlackRock New York Municipal 2018 Term Trust (BLH) (Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)

Municipal Bonds	Par   (000)		Value
New York — 95.3%
Corporate — 2.8%
City of New York New York Industrial Development Agency, ARB, American Airlines, Inc., JFK International Airport Project, AMT, Series B, 2.00%, 8/01/28 (a)	$	1,530	$	1,532,953
County/City/Special District/School District — 37.7%
City of New York New York, GO, Refunding, Series A, 5.00%, 8/01/18		500		550,130
City of New York New York, GO:
Sub-Series G-1, 5.00%, 4/01/18		5,000		5,445,000
Sub-Series H-2, 5.00%, 6/01/20		3,470		4,012,847
City of New York New York Transitional Finance Authority, RB, Fiscal 2008, Series S-1, 5.00%, 1/15/23		1,400		1,514,548
City of Rochester New York, GO, Refunding, Series I, 4.00%, 8/15/18		2,000		2,151,000
County of Erie New York Industrial Development Agency, GO:
Series A, 5.00%, 9/15/18		350		385,913
Series B, 5.00%, 6/01/18		1,000		1,093,210
Haverstraw-Stony Point Central School District, GO, Refunding, 4.00%, 10/15/18		1,000		1,078,790
New York State Dormitory Authority, RB:
General Purpose, Series E, 5.00%, 8/15/19		1,500		1,705,455
School Districts Financing Program, Series C, 4.00%, 10/01/18		535		575,168
New York State Dormitory Authority, Refunding RB, 3rd General Resolution, State University Educational Facilities, 4.00%, 5/15/18		1,000		1,071,090
Owego Apalachin Central School District, GO, Refunding (AGM), 4.00%, 6/15/18		1,015		1,081,239
				20,664,390
Education — 10.4%
City of New York New York Transitional Finance Authority, Refunding RB, Subordinate, Future Tax Secured, Series B, 5.00%, 2/01/20		2,000		2,295,900
County of Tompkins New York Development Corp., Refunding RB, Ithaca College, 4.00%, 7/01/18		500		534,505
New York State Dormitory Authority, LRB, State University Dormitory Facilities, Series A, 5.00%, 7/01/21		250		291,380
New York State Dormitory Authority, RB, Pratt Institute, Series C (AGC), 5.00%, 7/01/19		600		673,746
New York State Dormitory Authority, Refunding RB:
Mental Health Service, 5.00%, 8/15/18 (b)		5		5,521
Pratt Institute, Series A, 4.00%, 7/01/18		310		330,996
Teachers College, Series A, 5.00%, 7/01/17		200		212,344
Teachers College, Series A, 5.00%, 7/01/18		250		273,913
Yonkers Industrial Development Agency New York, RB, Sarah Lawrence College Project, Series A:
5.00%, 6/01/18		600		647,742
5.00%, 6/01/19		400		442,552
				5,708,599
Health — 6.5%
New York State Dormitory Authority, Refunding RB:
Miriam Osborn Memorial Home, 2.50%, 7/01/18		1,890		1,913,852
North Shore Long Island Jewish, Series A, 5.00%, 5/01/18		615		666,974
North Shore Long Island Jewish, Series A, 4.00%, 5/01/19		250		269,312

Municipal Bonds	Par   (000)		Value
New York (continued)
Health (continued)
New York State Dormitory Authority, Refunding RB (continued):
North Shore Long Island Jewish, Series A, 5.00%, 5/01/19	$	650	$	722,566
				3,572,704
Housing — 2.8%
New York State Dormitory Authority, Refunding RB, State University Educational Facilities, Series A, 5.88%, 5/15/17		125		130,190
New York State Urban Development Corp., RB, State Personal Income Tax, Series A-1, 5.00%, 12/15/22		500		558,940
New York State Urban Development Corp., Refunding RB, Series D, 5.50%, 1/01/19		750		846,412
				1,535,542
State — 8.4%
New York State Dormitory Authority, RB, General Purpose, Series A, 5.00%, 3/15/18		1,500		1,631,910
New York State Dormitory Authority, Refunding LRB, Municipal Health Facilities, 4.00%, 5/15/18		550		585,519
State of New York, GO, Series E, 5.00%, 12/15/20		2,000		2,371,480
				4,588,909
Tobacco — 1.4%
Chautauqua Tobacco Asset Securitization Corp., Refunding RB:
4.00%, 6/01/17		350		364,718
4.00%, 6/01/18		350		372,389
				737,107
Transportation — 18.5%
Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Refunding RB:
Series C, 5.00%, 11/15/18		1,965		2,183,587
Series F, 4.00%, 11/15/18		300		324,906
New York State Thruway Authority, RB, Transportation, Series A, 5.00%, 3/15/20		1,750		1,943,130
Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, ARB, JFK International Air Terminal LLC Project, 5.00%, 12/01/20		300		340,959
Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, Refunding RB, AMT:
178th Series, 5.00%, 12/01/18		900		994,896
193rd Series, 4.00%, 10/15/18		1,000		1,074,330
Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority, Refunding RB, General, Series B, 4.00%, 11/15/18		3,000		3,253,500
				10,115,308
Utilities — 6.8%
Long Island Power Authority, Refunding RB, Series A, 5.25%, 4/01/21		1,000		1,101,270
New York City Municipal Water Finance Authority, Refunding RB, Water & Sewer System, 2nd General Resolution, Fiscal 2012, Series FF, 5.00%, 6/15/20		2,000		2,318,900
Upper Mohawk Valley Regional Water Finance Authority, Refunding RB, Water System, Series 2012, 4.00%, 4/01/18		300		317,625
				3,737,795
Total Municipal Bonds in New York				52,193,307

See Notes to Financial Statements.

ANNUAL REPORT DECEMBER 31, 2015 19

Schedule of Investments (concluded) BlackRock New York Municipal 2018 Term Trust (BLH)

Municipal Bonds	Par   (000)		Value
Guam — 0.3%
Utilities — 0.3%
Guam Power Authority, Refunding RB, Series A (AGM), 5.00%, 10/01/19	$	140	$	158,346
U.S. Virgin Islands — 2.4%
State — 2.4%
Virgin Islands Public Finance Authority, RB, Series A:
5.00%, 10/01/16		630		648,024
5.00%, 10/01/17		665		704,082
Total Municipal Bonds in U.S. Virgin Islands				1,352,106
Total Long-Term Investments (Cost — $52,268,883) — 98.0%				53,703,759

Short-Term Securities	Shares		Value
BIF New York Municipal Money Fund, 0.00% (c)(d)		664,307	$	664,307
Total Short-Term Securities (Cost — $664,307) — 1.2%				664,307
Total Investments (Cost — $52,933,190) — 99.2%			$	54,368,066
Other Assets Less Liabilities — 0.8%				413,052
Net Assets Applicable to Common Shares — 100.0%			$	54,781,118

Notes to Schedule of Investments

(a) Variable rate security. Rate as of period end.

(b) Security is collateralized by municipal bonds or U.S. Treasury obligations.

(c) During the year ended December 31, 2015, investments in issuers considered to be an affiliate of the Trust for purposes of Section 2(a)(3) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, were as follows:

Affiliate	Shares Held at December 31, 2014		Net Activity			Shares Held at December 31, 2015		Income
BIF New York Municipal Money Fund		721,078		(56,771	)		664,307		—

(d) Current yield as of period end.

For Trust compliance purposes, the Trust’s sector classifications refer to one or more widely recognized market indexes or rating group indexes as defined by the investment advisor. These definitions may not apply for purposes of this report, which may combine such sector sub-classifications for reporting ease.

Fair Value Hierarchy as of Period End

Various inputs are used in determining the fair value of investments. For information about the Trust’s policy regarding valuation of investments, refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the Trust’s investments categorized in the disclosure hierarchy:

	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3	Total
Assets:
Investments:
Long-Term Investments1		—	$	53,703,759	—	$	53,703,759
Short-Term Securities	$	664,307		—	—		664,307
Total	$	664,307	$	53,703,759	—	$	54,368,066
1    See above Schedule of Investments for values in each sector.

During the year ended December 31, 2015, there were no transfers between levels.

See Notes to Financial Statements.

20 ANNUAL REPORT DECEMBER 31, 2015

Statements of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2015	BlackRock California Municipal 2018 Term Trust (BJZ)			BlackRock Municipal 2018 Term Trust (BPK)			BlackRock New York Municipal 2018 Term Trust (BLH)
Assets
Investments at value — unaffiliated1	$	95,386,581		$	245,675,407		$	53,703,759
Investments at value — affiliated2		1,076,590			69			664,307
Receivables:
Interest		1,022,790			2,915,145			502,445
Investments sold		60,498			310,271			—
Prepaid expenses		2,152			5,475			1,210
Total assets		97,548,611			248,906,367			54,871,721
Accrued Liabilities
Bank overdraft		—			875,020			—
Payables:
Investment advisory fees		33,118			84,247			18,573
Officer’s and Trustees’ fees		12,059			44,561			8,491
Income dividends — Common Shares		4,661			50,669			1,578
Interest expense and fees		—			1,625			—
Other accrued expenses		63,926			91,355			61,961
Total accrued liabilities		113,764			1,147,477			90,603
Other Liabilities
TOB Trust Certificates		—			3,750,000			—
Total liabilities		113,764			4,897,477			90,603
Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders	$	97,434,847		$	244,008,890		$	54,781,118
Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders Consist of
Paid-in capital3	$	92,746,843		$	234,196,356		$	52,879,382
Undistributed net investment income		2,024,879			4,990,570			755,697
Accumulated net realized loss		(641,932	)		(175,830	)		(288,837	)
Net unrealized appreciation (depreciation)		3,305,057			4,997,794			1,434,876
Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders	$	97,434,847		$	244,008,890		$	54,781,118
Net asset value, per Common Share	$	15.15		$	15.34		$	15.08
1    Investments at cost — unaffiliated	$	92,081,524		$	240,677,613		$	52,268,883
2    Investments at cost — affiliated	$	1,076,590		$	69		$	664,307
3    Common Shares outstanding, unlimited number of shares authorized, par value $0.001 per share		6,433,028			15,908,028			3,633,028

See Notes to Financial Statements.
	ANNUAL REPORT	DECEMBER 31, 2015	21

Statements of Operations

Year Ended December 31, 2015	BlackRock California Municipal 2018 Term Trust (BJZ)			BlackRock Municipal 2018 Term Trust (BPK)			BlackRock New York Municipal 2018 Term Trust (BLH)
Investment Income
Interest	$	2,870,120		$	7,705,709		$	1,257,221
Interest — affiliated		—			11,107			—
Total income		2,870,120			7,716,816			1,257,221
Expenses
Investment advisory		391,889			1,006,308			230,701
Professional		51,463			70,122			46,638
Accounting services		17,652			37,451			11,585
Transfer agent		15,556			23,518			14,459
Printing		9,257			12,469			8,447
Registration		8,908			8,908			8,908
Officer and Trustees		7,942			19,965			4,211
Custodian		7,204			15,459			5,331
Remarketing fees for Preferred Shares		—			—			3,374
Rating agency		—			4,620			4,620
Miscellaneous		16,753			36,051			14,720
Total expenses excluding interest expense and fees		526,624			1,234,871			352,994
Interest expense and fees1		—			25,246			—
Total expenses		526,624			1,260,117			352,994
Less fees waived by the Manager		(203	)		(15	)		(1,265	)
Total expenses after fees waived		526,421			1,260,102			351,729
Net investment income		2,343,699			6,456,714			905,492
Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss)
Net realized gain from investments		225,340			1,011,247			282,654
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments		(1,147,966	)		(4,712,774	)		(474,024	)
Net realized and unrealized loss		(922,626	)		(3,701,527	)		(191,370	)
Distributions to AMPS Shareholders
From net investment income		—			—			(3,026	)
Net Increase in Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders Resulting from Operations	$	1,421,073		$	2,755,187		$	711,096
1    Related to TOB Trusts.

See Notes to Financial Statements.
22	ANNUAL REPORT	DECEMBER 31, 2015

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	BlackRock California Municipal 2018 Term Trust (BJZ)						BlackRock Municipal 2018 Term Trust (BPK)
	Year Ended December 31,						Year Ended December 31,
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders:	2015			2014			2015			2014
Operations
Net investment income	$	2,343,699		$	2,556,655		$	6,456,714		$	9,764,771
Net realized gain		225,340			200,752			1,011,247			7,787,266
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation)		(1,147,966	)		306,107			(4,712,774	)		(3,672,047	)
Distributions to AMPS Shareholders from net investment income		—			(4,188	)		—			(57,682	)
Net increase in net assets applicable to Common Shareholders resulting from operations		1,421,073			3,059,326			2,755,187			13,822,308
Distributions to Common Shareholders1
From net investment income		(2,425,251	)		(3,462,256	)		(9,497,093	)		(10,750,645	)
Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders
Total increase (decrease) in net assets applicable to Common Shareholders		(1,004,178	)		(402,930	)		(6,741,906	)		3,071,663
Beginning of year		98,439,025			98,841,955			250,750,796			247,679,133
End of year	$	97,434,847		$	98,439,025		$	244,008,890		$	250,750,796
Undistributed net investment income, end of year	$	2,024,879		$	2,317,431		$	4,990,584		$	8,523,941

	BlackRock New York Municipal 2018 Term Trust (BLH)
	Year Ended December 31,
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders:	2015			2014
Operations
Net investment income	$	905,492		$	1,266,376
Net realized gain		282,654			8,388
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation)		(474,024	)		707,530
Distributions to AMPS Shareholders from net investment income		(3,026	)		(15,396	)
Net increase in net assets applicable to Common Shareholders resulting from operations		711,096			1,966,898
Distributions to Common Shareholders1
From net investment income		(1,204,712	)		(1,359,116	)
Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders
Total increase (decrease) in net assets applicable to Common Shareholders		(493,616	)		607,782
Beginning of year		55,274,734			54,666,952
End of year	$	54,781,118		$	55,274,734
Undistributed net investment income, end of year	$	755,697		$	1,138,791

¹ Distributions for annual periods determined in accordance with federal income tax regulations.

See Notes to Financial Statements.
	ANNUAL REPORT	DECEMBER 31, 2015	23

Financial Highlights BlackRock California Municipal 2018 Term Trust (BJZ)

	Year Ended December 31,
	2015			2014			2013			2012			2011
Per Share Operating Performance
Net asset value, beginning of year	$	15.30		$	15.36		$	15.81		$	15.60		$	14.34
Net investment income1		0.36			0.40			0.61			0.71			0.86
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss)		(0.13	)		0.08			(0.42	)		0.28			1.28
Distributions to AMPS Shareholders from net investment income		—			(0.00	)2		(0.01	)		(0.02	)		(0.02	)
Net increase from investment operations		0.23			0.48			0.18			0.97			2.12
Distributions to Common Shareholders from net investment income3		(0.38	)		(0.54	)		(0.63	)		(0.76	)		(0.86	)
Net asset value, end of year	$	15.15		$	15.30		$	15.36		$	15.81		$	15.60
Market price, end of year	$	15.05		$	15.24		$	15.77		$	16.21		$	16.34
Total Return4
Based on net asset value		1.52%			3.09%			1.07%			6.16%			14.86%
Based on market price		1.24%			0.01%			1.21%			3.92%			12.17%
Ratios to Average Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders
Total expenses		0.54%			0.57%	5		0.82%	5		0.93%	5		0.93%	5
Total expenses after fees waived		0.54%			0.57%	5,6		0.82%	5,6		0.92%	5		0.91%	5
Net investment income		2.39%			2.57%	5		3.92%	5		4.51%	5		5.82%	5
Distributions to AMPS Shareholders		—			0.00%	7		0.07%			0.14%			0.17%
Net investment income to Common Shareholders		2.39%			2.57%			3.85%			4.37%			5.65%
Supplemental Data
Net assets applicable to Common Shareholders, end of year (000)	$	97,435		$	98,439		$	98,842		$	101,729		$	100,345
AMPS outstanding at $25,000 liquidation preference, end of year (000)		—			—		$	26,850		$	55,525		$	55,525
Asset coverage per AMPS at $25,000 liquidation preference, end of year		—			—		$	117,032		$	70,803		$	70,180
Portfolio turnover rate		6%			12%			—			15%			28%

¹  Based on average Common Shares outstanding.

²  Amount is greater than $(0.005) per share.

³  Distributions for annual periods determined in accordance with federal income tax regulations.

⁴  Total returns based on market price, which can be significantly greater or less than the net asset value, may result in substantially different returns. Where applicable, excludes the effects of any sales charges and assumes the reinvestment of distributions.

⁵  Does not reflect the effect of distributions to AMPS Shareholders.

⁶  For the years ended December 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013, the total expense ratio after fees waived and remarketing fees was 0.57%, and 0.75%, respectively.

⁷  Amount is less than 0.005%.

See Notes to Financial Statements.
24	ANNUAL REPORT	DECEMBER 31, 2015

Financial Highlights BlackRock Municipal 2018 Term Trust (BPK)

	Year Ended December 31,
	2015			2014			2013			2012			2011
Per Share Operating Performance
Net asset value, beginning of year	$	15.76		$	15.57		$	16.07		$	15.66		$	14.58
Net investment income1		0.41			0.61			0.72			0.87			1.04
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss)		(0.23	)		0.26			(0.44	)		0.50			1.00
Distributions to AMPS Shareholders from net investment income		—			(0.00	)2		(0.01	)		(0.02	)		(0.02	)
Net increase from investment operations		0.18			0.87			0.27			1.35			2.02
Distributions to Common Shareholders from net investment income3		(0.60	)		(0.68	)		(0.77	)		(0.94	)		(0.94	)
Net asset value, end of year	$	15.34		$	15.76		$	15.57		$	16.07		$	15.66
Market price, end of year	$	15.50		$	16.13		$	15.94		$	16.56		$	16.59
Total Return4
Based on net asset value		1.11%			5.53%			1.55%			8.42%			13.86%
Based on market price		(0.18)%			5.50%			0.88%			5.46%			11.66%
Ratios to Average Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders
Total expenses		0.51%			0.64%	5		0.73%	5		0.86%	5		0.85%	5
Total expenses after fees waived		0.51%			0.64%	5,6		0.73%	5,6		0.86%	5		0.85%	5
Total expenses after fees waived and excluding interest expense and fees		0.50%			0.63%	5		0.72%	5		0.85%	5		0.84%	5
Net investment income		2.61%			3.89%			4.56%			5.51%			6.94%
Distributions to AMPS Shareholders		—			0.02%			0.06%			0.14%			0.16%
Net investment income to Common Shareholders		2.61%			3.87%			4.50%			5.37%			6.78%
Supplemental Data
Net assets applicable to Common Shareholders, end of year (000)	$	244,009		$	250,751		$	247,679		$	255,711		$	249,069
AMPS outstanding at $25,000 liquidation preference, end of year (000)		—			—		$	69,250		$	133,850		$	133,850
Asset coverage per AMPS at $25,000 liquidation preference, end of year		—			—		$	114,415		$	72,761		$	71,521
Borrowings outstanding, end of year (000)	$	3,750		$	3,750		$	3,750		$	3,750		$	3,750
Portfolio turnover rate		18%			14%			3%			23%			13%

¹  Based on average Common Shares outstanding.

²  Amount is greater than $(0.005) per share.

³  Distributions for annual periods determined in accordance with federal income tax regulations.

⁴  Total returns based on market price, which can be significantly greater or less than the net asset value, may result in substantially different returns. Where applicable, excludes the effects of any sales charges and assumes the reinvestment of distributions.

⁵  Does not reflect the effect of distributions to AMPS Shareholders.

⁶  For the years ended December 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013, the total expense ratio after fees waived and excluding interest expense and fees and remarketing fees was 0.60% and 0.67%, respectively.

See Notes to Financial Statements.
	ANNUAL REPORT	DECEMBER 31, 2015	25

Financial Highlights BlackRock New York Municipal 2018 Term Trust  (BLH)

	Year Ended December 31,
	2015			2014			2013			2012			2011
Per Share Operating Performance
Net asset value, beginning of year	$	15.21		$	15.05		$	15.67		$	15.64		$	15.18
Net investment income1		0.25			0.35			0.44			0.65			1.00
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss)		(0.05	)		0.18			(0.48	)		0.23			0.46
Distributions to AMPS Shareholders from net investment income		(0.00	)2		(0.00	)2		(0.01	)		(0.02	)		(0.02	)
Net increase (decrease) from investment operations		0.20			0.53			(0.05	)		0.86			1.44
Distributions to Common Shareholders from net investment income3		(0.33	)		(0.37	)		(0.57	)		(0.83	)		(0.98	)
Net asset value, end of year	$	15.08		$	15.21		$	15.05		$	15.67		$	15.64
Market price, end of year	$	14.94		$	14.95		$	15.23		$	16.05		$	16.71
Total Return4
Based on net asset value		1.29%			3.58%			(0.36)%			5.34%			9.41%
Based on market price		2.16%			0.61%			(1.55)%			0.99%			11.46%
Ratios to Average Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders
Total expenses5		0.64%			0.79%			0.89%			0.96%			0.99%
Total expenses after fees waived5		0.64%	6		0.79%	6		0.89%	6		0.95%			0.98%
Net investment income5		1.64%			2.29%			2.89%			4.11%			6.52%
Distributions to AMPS Shareholders		0.00%	7		0.03%			0.07%			0.14%			0.16%
Net investment income to Common Shareholders		1.64%			2.26%			2.82%			3.97%			6.36%
Supplemental Data
Net assets applicable to Common Shareholders, end of year (000)	$	54,781		$	55,275		$	54,667		$	56,921		$	56,808
AMPS outstanding at $25,000 liquidation preference, end of year (000)		—		$	12,050		$	16,425		$	31,400		$	31,400
Asset coverage per AMPS at $25,000 liquidation preference, end of year		—		$	139,678		$	108,207		$	70,319		$	70,230
Portfolio turnover rate		14%			4%			7%			48%			16%

¹  Based on average Common Shares outstanding.

²  Amount is greater than $(0.005) per share.

³  Distributions for annual periods determined in accordance with federal income tax regulations.

⁴  Total returns based on market price, which can be significantly greater or less than the net asset value, may result in substantially different returns. Where applicable, excludes the effects of any sales charges and assumes the reinvestment of distributions.

⁵  Does not reflect the effect of distributions to AMPS Shareholders.

⁶  For the years ended December 31, 2015, December 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013, the total expense ratio after fees waived and excluding remarketing fees was 0.63%, 0.75% and 0.83%, respectively.

⁷  Amount is less than 0.005%.

See Notes to Financial Statements.
26	ANNUAL REPORT	DECEMBER 31, 2015

Notes to Financial Statements

1. Organization:

The following are registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), as closed-end management investment companies and are referred to herein collectively as the “Trusts”, or individually, a “Trust”:

Trust Name	Herein Referred To As		Organized		Diversification Classification
BlackRock California Municipal 2018 Term Trust		BJZ		Delaware	Non-diversified
BlackRock Municipal 2018 Term Trust		BPK		Delaware	Diversified
BlackRock New York Municipal 2018 Term Trust		BLH		Delaware	Non-diversified

The Board of Trustees of the Trusts are collectively referred to throughout this report as the “Board of Trustees” or the “Board,” and the trustees thereof are collectively referred to throughout this report as “Trustees.” The Trusts determine and make available for publication the NAVs of their Common Shares on a daily basis.

The Trusts, together with certain other registered investment companies advised by BlackRock Advisors, LLC (the “Manager”) or its affiliates, are included in a complex of closed-end funds referred to as the Closed-End Complex.

2. Significant Accounting Policies:

The financial statements are prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“U.S. GAAP”), which may require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities in the financial statements, disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of increases and decreases in net assets from operations during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. Each Trust is considered an investment company under U.S. GAAP and follows the accounting and reporting guidance applicable to investment companies. Below is a summary of significant accounting policies:

Segregation and Collateralization: In cases where a Trust enters into certain borrowings (e.g., TOB transactions) that would be treated as “senior securities” for 1940 Act purposes, a Trust may segregate or designate on its books and records cash or liquid assets having a market value at least equal to the amount of its future obligations under such borrowings. Doing so allows the borrowing to be excluded from treatment as a “senior security.” Furthermore, if required by an exchange or counterparty agreement, the Trust may be required to deliver/deposit cash and/or securities to/with an exchange, or broker-dealer or custodian as collateral for certain investments or obligations.

Investment Transactions and Investment Income: For financial reporting purposes, investment transactions are recorded on the dates the transactions are entered into (the trade dates). Realized gains and losses on investment transactions are determined on the identified cost basis. Interest income, including amortization and accretion of premiums and discounts on debt securities, is recognized on the accrual basis.

Distributions: Distributions from net investment income are declared and paid monthly. Distributions of capital gains are recorded on the ex-dividend date. The character and timing of distributions are determined in accordance with federal income tax regulations, which may differ from U.S. GAAP. Distributions to Preferred Shareholders are accrued and determined as described in Note 9.

Deferred Compensation Plan: Under the Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Plan”) approved by each Trust’s Board, the independent Trustees (“Independent Trustees”) may defer a portion of their annual complex-wide compensation. Deferred amounts earn an approximate return as though equivalent dollar amounts had been invested in common shares of certain other BlackRock Closed-End Funds selected by the Independent Trustees. This has the same economic effect for the Independent Trustees as if the Independent Trustees had invested the deferred amounts directly in certain other BlackRock Closed-End Funds.

The Plan is not funded and obligations thereunder represent general unsecured claims against the general assets of each Trust, if applicable. Deferred compensation liabilities are included in officer’s and trustees’ fees payable in the Statements of Assets and Liabilities and will remain as a liability of the Trusts until such amounts are distributed in accordance with the Plan.

Indemnifications: In the normal course of business, a Trust enters into contracts that contain a variety of representations that provide general indemnification. A Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown because it involves future potential claims against a Trust, which cannot be predicted with any certainty.

ANNUAL REPORT DECEMBER 31, 2015 27

Notes to Financial Statements (continued)

Other: Expenses directly related to a Trust are charged to that Trust. Other operating expenses shared by several funds, including other funds managed by the Manager, are prorated among those funds on the basis of relative net assets or other appropriate methods.

The Trusts have an arrangement with their custodian whereby fees may be reduced by credits earned on uninvested cash balances, which, if applicable, are shown as fees paid indirectly in the Statements of Operations. The custodian imposes fees on overdrawn cash balances, which can be offset by accumulated credits earned or may result in additional custody charges. Effective September 2015, the arrangement with their custodian for earning credits on uninvested cash balances has ceased and the custodian will be imposing fees on certain uninvested cash balances.

3. Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements:

Investment Valuation Policies: The Trusts’ investments are valued at fair value (also referred to as “market value” within the financial statements) as of the close of trading on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) (generally 4:00 p.m., Eastern time). U.S. GAAP defines fair value as the price the Trusts would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. The Trusts determine the fair values of their financial instruments using independent dealers or pricing services under policies approved by the Board. The BlackRock Global Valuation Methodologies Committee (the “Global Valuation Committee”) is the committee formed by management to develop global pricing policies and procedures and to provide oversight of the pricing function for the Trusts for all financial instruments.

Fair Value Inputs and Methodologies: The following methods (or “techniques”) and inputs are used to establish the fair value of each Trust’s assets and liabilities:

• Municipal investments (including commitments to purchase such investments on a “when-issued” basis) are valued on the basis of prices provided by dealers or pricing services. In determining the value of a particular investment, pricing services may use certain information with respect to transactions in such investments, quotations from dealers, pricing matrixes, market transactions in comparable investments and information with respect to various relationships between investments.

• Investments in open-end U.S. mutual funds are valued at NAV each business day.

If events (e.g., a company announcement, market volatility or a natural disaster) occur that are expected to materially affect the value of such instruments, or in the event that the application of these methods of valuation results in a price for an investment that is deemed not to be representative of the market value of such investment, or if a price is not available, the investment will be valued by the Global Valuation Committee, or its delegate, in accordance with a policy approved by the Board as reflecting fair value (“Fair Valued Investments”). When determining the price for Fair Valued Investments, the Global Valuation Committee, or its delegate, seeks to determine the price that each Trust might reasonably expect to receive or pay from the current sale or purchase of that asset or liability in an arm’s-length transaction. Fair value determinations shall be based upon all available factors that the Global Valuation Committee, or its delegate, deems relevant consistent with the principles of fair value measurement. The pricing of all Fair Valued Investments is subsequently reported to the Board or a committee thereof on a quarterly basis.

Fair Value Hierarchy: Various inputs are used in determining the fair value of investments. These inputs to valuation techniques are categorized into a fair value hierarchy consisting of three broad levels for financial statement purposes as follows:

• Level 1 — unadjusted price quotations in active markets/exchanges for identical assets or liabilities that each Trust has the ability to access

• Level 2 — other observable inputs (including, but not limited to, quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in markets that are active, quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in markets that are not active, inputs other than quoted prices that are observable for the assets or liabilities (such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks and default rates) or other market–corroborated inputs)

• Level 3 — unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are not available (including each Trust’s own assumptions used in determining the fair value of investments)

The hierarchy gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1 measurements) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (Level 3 measurements). Accordingly, the degree of judgment exercised in determining fair value is greatest for instruments categorized in Level 3. The inputs used to measure fair value may fall into different levels of the fair value hierarchy. In such cases, for disclosure purposes, the fair value hierarchy classification is determined based on the lowest level input that is significant to the fair value measurement in its entirety. The significant unobservable inputs used by the Global Valuation Committee in determining the price for Fair Valued Investments are typically categorized as Level 3. The fair value hierarchy for each Trust’s investments has been included in the Schedules of Investments.

28 ANNUAL REPORT DECEMBER 31, 2015

Notes to Financial Statements (continued)

Changes in valuation techniques may result in transfers into or out of an assigned level within the hierarchy. In accordance with each Trust’s policy, transfers between different levels of the fair value hierarchy are deemed to have occurred as of the beginning of the reporting period. The categorization of a value determined for investments is based on the pricing transparency of the investments and is not necessarily an indication of the risks associated with investing in those securities.

4. Securities and Other Investments:

Zero-Coupon Bonds: Zero-coupon bonds are normally issued at a significant discount from face value and do not provide for periodic interest payments. These bonds may experience greater volatility in market value than other debt obligations of similar maturity which provide for regular interest payments.

Forward Commitments and When-Issued Delayed Delivery Securities: Certain Trusts may purchase securities on a when-issued basis and may purchase or sell securities on a forward commitment basis. Settlement of such transactions normally occurs within a month or more after the purchase or sale commitment is made. A Trust may purchase securities under such conditions with the intention of actually acquiring them, but may enter into a separate agreement to sell the securities before the settlement date. Since the value of securities purchased may fluctuate prior to settlement, a Trust may be required to pay more at settlement than the security is worth. In addition, a Trust is not entitled to any of the interest earned prior to settlement. When purchasing a security on a delayed delivery basis, a Trust assumes the rights and risks of ownership of the security, including the risk of price and yield fluctuations. In the event of default by the counterparty, a Trust’s maximum amount of loss is the unrealized appreciation of unsettled when-issued transactions.

Municipal Bonds Transferred to TOB Trusts: Certain Trusts leverage their assets through the use of TOB transactions. The Trusts transfer municipal bonds into a special purpose trust (a “TOB Trust”). A TOB Trust generally issues two classes of beneficial interests: short-term floating rate interests (“TOB Trust Certificates”), which are sold to third party investors, and residual inverse floating rate interests (“TOB Residuals”), which are generally issued to the participating funds that contributed the municipal bonds to the TOB Trust. The TOB Trust Certificates have interest rates that generally reset weekly and their holders have the option to tender such certificates to the TOB Trust for redemption at par and any accrued interest at each reset date. The TOB Residuals held by a Trust generally provide the Trust with the right to cause the holders of a proportional share of the TOB Trust Certificates to tender their certificates to the TOB Trust at par plus accrued interest. The Trusts may withdraw a corresponding share of the municipal bonds from the TOB Trust. Other funds managed by the investment advisor may also contribute municipal bonds to a TOB Trust into which a Trust has contributed bonds. If multiple BlackRock advised funds participate in the same TOB Trust, the economic rights and obligations under the TOB Residual will be shared among the funds ratably in proportion to their participation in the TOB Trust.

TOB Trusts are generally supported by a liquidity facility provided by a third party bank or other financial institution (the “Liquidity Provider”) that allows the holders of the TOB Trust Certificates to tender their certificates in exchange for payment of par plus accrued interest on any business day. The tendered TOB Trust Certificates may be purchased by the Liquidity Provider and are usually remarketed by a Remarketing Agent, which is typically an affiliated entity of the Liquidity Provider. The Remarketing Agent may also purchase the tendered TOB Trust Certificates for its own account in the event of a failed remarketing.

The TOB Trust may be collapsed without the consent of a Trust, upon the occurrence of tender option termination events (“TOTEs”) or mandatory termination events (“MTEs”), as defined in the TOB Trust agreements. TOTEs include the bankruptcy or default of the issuer of the municipal bonds held in the TOB Trust, a substantial downgrade in the credit quality of the issuer of the municipal bonds held in the TOB Trust, failure of any scheduled payment of principal or interest on the municipal bonds, and/or a judgment or ruling that interest on the municipal bond is subject to federal income taxation. MTEs may include, among other things, a failed remarketing of the TOB Trust Certificates, the inability of the TOB Trust to obtain renewal of the liquidity support agreement and a substantial decline in the market value of the municipal bonds held in the TOB Trust. Upon the occurrence of a TOTE or an MTE, the TOB Trust would be liquidated with the proceeds applied first to any accrued fees owed to the trustee of the TOB Trust, the Remarketing Agent and the Liquidity Provider. In the case of an MTE, after the payment of fees, the TOB Trust Certificate holders would be paid before the TOB Residual holders (i.e., the Trusts). In contrast, in the case of a TOTE, after payment of fees, the TOB Trust Certificate holders and the TOB Residual holders would be paid pro rata in proportion to the respective face values of their certificates. During the year ended December 31, 2015, no TOB Trusts in which a Trust participated were terminated without the consent of a Trust.

While a Trust’s investment policies and restrictions expressly permit investments in inverse floating rate securities, such as TOB Residuals, they generally do not allow a Trust to borrow money for purposes of making investments. The Trusts’ management believes that a Trust’s restrictions on borrowings do not apply to the secured borrowings. Each Trust’s transfer of the municipal bonds to a TOB Trust is considered a secured borrowing for

ANNUAL REPORT DECEMBER 31, 2015 29

Notes to Financial Statements (continued)

financial reporting purposes. The cash received by the TOB Trust from the sale of the TOB Trust Certificates, less certain transaction expenses, is paid to a Trust. A Trust typically invests the cash received in additional municipal bonds. The municipal bonds deposited into a TOB Trust are presented in a Trust’s Schedule of Investments and the TOB Trust Certificates are shown in Other Liabilities in the Statements of Assets and Liabilities. Any loans drawn by the TOB Trust to purchase tendered TOB Trust Certificates would be shown as Loan for TOB Trust Certificates.

Volcker Rule Impact: On December 10, 2013, regulators published final rules implementing section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Volcker Rule”), which precludes banking entities and their affiliates from sponsoring and investing in TOB Trusts. Banking entities subject to the Volcker Rule were required to fully comply by July 21, 2015, with respect to investments in and relationships with TOB Trusts established after December 31, 2013 (“Non-Legacy TOB Trusts”), and by July 21, 2016, with respect to investments in and relationships with TOB Trusts established prior to December 31, 2013 (“Legacy TOB Trusts”).

As a result, a new structure for TOB Trusts has been designed to ensure that no banking entity is sponsoring the TOB Trust. Specifically, a Trust will establish, structure and “sponsor” the TOB Trusts in which it holds TOB Residuals. In such a structure, certain responsibilities that previously belonged to a third party bank will be performed by, or on behalf of, the Trusts. The Trusts have restructured any Non-Legacy TOB Trusts and are in the process of restructuring Legacy TOB Trusts in conformity with regulatory guidelines. Until all restructurings are completed, a Trust may, for a period of time, hold TOB Residuals in both Legacy TOB Trusts and non-bank sponsored restructured TOB Trusts.

Under the new TOB Trust structure, the Liquidity Provider or Remarketing Agent will no longer purchase the tendered TOB Trust Certificates even in the event of failed remarketing. This may increase the likelihood that a TOB Trust will need to be collapsed and liquidated in order to purchase the tendered TOB Trust Certificates. The TOB Trust may draw upon a loan from the Liquidity Provider to purchase the tendered TOB Trust Certificates. Any loans made by the Liquidity Provider will be secured by the purchased TOB Trust Certificates held by the TOB Trust and will be subject to an increased interest rate based on the number of days the loan is outstanding.

Accounting for TOB Trusts: The municipal bonds deposited into a TOB Trust are presented in a Trust’s Schedule of Investments and the TOB Trust Certificates are shown in Other Liabilities in the Statements of Assets and Liabilities. Any loans drawn by the TOB Trust to purchase tendered TOB Trust Certificates are shown as Loan for TOB Trust Certificates. The carrying amount of a Trust’s payable to the holder of the TOB Trust Certificates, as reported in the Statements of Assets and Liabilities as TOB Trust Certificates, approximates its fair value.

Interest income, including amortization and accretion of premiums and discounts, from the underlying municipal bonds is recorded by a Trust on an accrual basis. Interest expense incurred on the TOB transaction and other expenses related to remarketing, administration, trustee, liquidity and other services to a TOB Trust are shown as interest expense, fees and amortization of offering costs in the Statements of Operations. Fees paid upon creation of the TOB Trust are recorded as debt issuance costs and are amortized to interest expense, fees and amortization of offering costs in the Statements of Operations to the expected maturity of the TOB Trust. In connection with the restructurings of the TOB Trusts to comply with the Volcker Rule, a Trust incurred non-recurring, legal and restructuring fees, which are recorded as interest expense, fees and amortization of deferred offering costs in the Statements of Operations.

For the year ended December 31, 2015, the following table is a summary of the Trusts’ TOB Trusts:

	Underlying Municipal Bonds Transferred to TOB Trusts1		Liability for TOB Trust Certificates2		Interest Rate		Average TOB Trust Certificates Outstanding		Daily Weighted Average Interest Rate
BPK	$	5,377,800	$	3,750,000		0.26%	$	3,750,000		0.62%

¹  The municipal bonds transferred to a TOB Trust are generally high grade municipal bonds. In certain cases, when municipal bonds transferred are lower grade municipal bonds, the TOB transaction may include a credit enhancement feature that provides for the timely payment of principal and interest on the bonds to the TOB Trust by a credit enhancement provider in the event of default of the municipal bond. The TOB Trust would be responsible for the payment of the credit enhancement fee and the Trusts, as TOB Residual holders, would be responsible for reimbursement of any payments of principal and interest made by the credit enhancement provider. The municipal bonds transferred to TOB Trusts with a credit enhancement are identified in the Schedules of Investments including the maximum potential amounts owed by the Trusts.

²  The Trusts may invest in TOB Trusts on either a non-recourse or recourse basis. When a Trust invests in TOB Trusts on a non-recourse basis, and the Liquidity Provider is required to make a payment under the liquidity facility, the Liquidity Provider will typically liquidate all or a portion of the municipal bonds held in the TOB Trust and then fund the balance, if any, of the amount owed under the liquidity facility over the liquidation proceeds (the “Liquidation Shortfall”). If a Trust invests in a TOB Trust on a recourse basis, the Trusts will usually enter into a reimbursement agreement with the Liquidity Provider where the Trusts are required to reimburse the Liquidity Provider the amount of any Liquidation Shortfall. As a result, if a Trust invests in a recourse TOB Trust, a Trust will bear the risk of loss with respect to any Liquidation Shortfall. If multiple funds participate in any such TOB Trust, these losses will be shared ratably, including the maximum potential amounts owed by the Trusts at December 31, 2015, in proportion to their participation in the TOB Trust. The recourse TOB Trusts, if any, are identified in the Schedules of Investments including the maximum potential amounts owed by the Trusts at December 31, 2015.

30 ANNUAL REPORT DECEMBER 31, 2015

Notes to Financial Statements (continued)

5. Investment Advisory Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates:

The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. is the largest stockholder and an affiliate of BlackRock, Inc. (“BlackRock”) for 1940 Act purposes.

Each Trust entered into an Investment Advisory Agreement with the Manager, the Trusts’ investment advisor, an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of BlackRock, to provide investment advisory and administration services. The Manager is responsible for the management of each Trust’s portfolio and provides the personnel, facilities, equipment and certain other services necessary to the operations of each Trust. For such services, each Trust pays the Manager a monthly fee at an annual rate of 0.40% of each Trust’s average weekly managed assets. Average weekly managed assets are the average weekly value of each Trust’s total assets minus its total accrued liabilities (which does not included liabilities represented by TOB Trusts leverage and the liquidation preference of the Preferred Shares).

The Manager voluntarily agreed to waive its investment advisory fees by the amount of investment advisory fees each Trust pays to the Manager indirectly through its investment in affiliated money market funds. These amounts are shown as fees waived by the Manager in the Statements of Operations. However, the Manager does not waive its investment advisory fees by the amount of investment advisory fees paid in connection with each Trust’s investments in other affiliated investment companies, if any.

Certain officers and/or Trustees of the Trusts are officers and/or directors of BlackRock or its affiliates. The Trusts reimburse the Manager for a portion of the compensation paid to the Trusts’ Chief Compliance Officer, which is included in officer and trustees in the Statements of Operations.

6. Purchases and Sales:

For the year ended December 31, 2015, purchases and sales of investments, excluding short-term securities, were as follows:

	BJZ		BPK		BLH
Purchases	$	5,718,774	$	44,724,046	$	7,794,652
Sales	$	5,735,276	$	46,199,732	$	19,186,230

7. Income Tax Information:

It is the Trusts’ policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, applicable to regulated investment companies, and to distribute substantially all of their taxable income to their shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required.

Each Trust files U.S. federal and various state and local tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The statute of limitations on each Trust’s U.S. federal tax returns remains open for each of the four years ended December 31, 2015. The statutes of limitations on each Trust’s state and local tax returns may remain open for an additional year depending upon the jurisdiction.

Management has analyzed tax laws and regulations and their application to the Trusts as of December 31, 2015, inclusive of the open tax return years, and does not believe there are any uncertain tax positions that require recognition of a tax liability in the Trusts’ financial statements.

U.S. GAAP requires that certain components of net assets be adjusted to reflect permanent differences between financial and tax reporting. These reclassifications have no effect on net assets or net asset values per share. As of period end, the following permanent differences attributable to the retention of tax-exempt income, the classification of investments, securities in default and distributions received from a regulated investment company were reclassified to the following accounts:

	BJZ			BPK			BLH
Paid-in capital	$	211,000		$	492,978		$	81,000
Undistributed net investment income	$	(211,000	)	$	(492,992	)	$	(80,848	)
Accumulated net realized loss		—		$	14		$	(152	)

ANNUAL REPORT DECEMBER 31, 2015 31

Notes to Financial Statements (continued)

The tax character of distributions paid was as follows:

	BJZ		BPK		BLH
Tax-exempt income:1
12/31/15	$	2,425,251	$	9,497,093	$	1,207,738
12/31/14	$	3,466,444	$	10,718,787	$	1,374,512
Ordinary Income:2
12/31/15		—		—		—
12/31/14		—	$	89,540		—
Total:
12/31/15	$	2,425,251	$	9,497,093	$	1,207,738
12/31/14	$	3,466,444	$	10,808,327	$	1,374,512

¹  The Trusts designate these amounts paid during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, as exempt-interest dividends.

²  Ordinary income consists primarily of taxable income recognized from market discount. Additionally, all ordinary income distributions are comprised of interest related dividends for non-U.S. residents and are eligible for exemption from U.S. withholding tax for nonresident aliens and foreign corporations.

As of period end, the tax components of accumulated net earnings were as follows:

	BJZ			BPK			BLH
Undistributed tax-exempt income	$	2,033,859		$	5,041,434		$	762,397
Capital loss carryforwards		(641,932	)		(93,002	)		(288,836	)
Net unrealized gains3		3,296,077			4,864,102			1,428,175
Total	$	4,688,004		$	9,812,534		$	1,901,736

³  The difference between book-basis and tax-basis net unrealized gains were attributable primarily to the accrual of income on securities in default, the timing and recognition of partnership income, the treatment of residual interests in TOB trusts and the deferral of compensation to Trustees.

As of period end, the Trusts had capital loss carryforwards available to offset future realized capital gains through the indicated expiration dates as follows:

Expires December 31,	BJZ		BPK		BLH
2017	$	641,932	$	93,002		—
2018		—		—	$	288,836
Total	$	641,932	$	93,002	$	288,836

During the year ended December 31, 2015, the Trusts listed below utilized the following amounts of their respective capital loss carryforward:

BJZ	$	225,340
BPK	$	984,700
BLH	$	282,502

As of period end, gross unrealized appreciation and depreciation based on cost for federal income tax purposes were as follows:

	BJZ			BPK			BLH
Tax cost	$	93,158,114		$	236,951,320		$	52,933,190
Gross unrealized appreciation	$	3,328,152		$	6,224,418		$	1,449,759
Gross unrealized depreciation		(23,095	)		(1,250,262	)		(14,883	)
Net unrealized appreciation	$	3,305,057		$	4,974,156		$	1,434,876

8. Principal Risks:

Many municipalities insure repayment of their bonds, which may reduce the potential for loss due to credit risk. The market value of these bonds may fluctuate for other reasons, including market perception of the value of such insurance, and there is no guarantee that the insurer will meet its obligation.

Inventories of municipal bonds held by brokers and dealers may decrease, which would lessen their ability to make a market in these securities. Such a reduction in market making capacity could potentially decrease a Trust’s ability to buy or sell bonds. As a result, a Trust may sell a security at a lower price, sell other securities to raise cash, or give up an investment opportunity, any of which could have a negative impact on performance. If a Trust needed to sell large blocks of bonds, those sales could further reduce the bonds’ prices and impact performance.

In the normal course of business, the Trusts invest in securities and enter into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the issuer to meet all its obligations, including the ability to pay principal and interest when due (issuer credit risk). The value of

32 ANNUAL REPORT DECEMBER 31, 2015

Notes to Financial Statements (continued)

securities held by the Trusts may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the issuers of securities owned by the Trusts. Changes arising from the general economy, the overall market and local, regional or global political or/and social instability, as well as currency, interest rate and price fluctuations, may also affect the securities’ value.

Each Trust may be exposed to prepayment risk, which is the risk that borrowers may exercise their option to prepay principal earlier than scheduled during periods of declining interest rates, which would force each Trust to reinvest in lower yielding securities. Each Trust may also be exposed to reinvestment risk, which is the risk that income from each Trust’s portfolio will decline if each Trust invests the proceeds from matured, traded or called fixed income securities at market interest rates that are below each Trust’s portfolio’s current earnings rate.

The Trusts may hold a significant amount of bonds subject to calls by the issuers at defined dates and prices. When bonds are called by issuers and the Trusts reinvest the proceeds received, such investments may be in securities with lower yields than the bonds originally held, and correspondingly, could adversely impact the yield and total return performance of a Trust.

The new TOB Trust structure resulting from the compliance with Volcker Rule remains untested. It is possible that regulators could take positions that could limit the market for such newly structured TOB Trust transactions or the Trusts’ ability to hold TOB Residuals. Under the new TOB Trust structure, the Trusts will have certain additional duties and responsibilities, which may give rise to certain additional risks including, but not limited to, compliance, securities law and operational risks.

There can be no assurance that the Trusts can successfully enter into restructured TOB Trust transactions in order to refinance their existing TOB Residual holdings prior to the compliance date for the Volcker Rule, which may require that the Trusts unwind existing TOB Trusts. There can be no assurance that alternative forms of leverage will be available to the Trusts and any alternative forms of leverage may be more or less advantageous to the Trusts than existing TOB leverage.

Should short-term interest rates rise, the Trusts’ investments in TOB transactions may adversely affect the Trusts’ net investment income and dividends to Common Shareholders. Also, fluctuations in the market value of municipal bonds deposited into the TOB Trust may adversely affect the Trusts’ NAVs per share.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and various federal banking and housing agencies recently adopted credit risk retention rules for securitizations (the “Risk Retention Rules”), which take effect in December 2016. The Risk Retention Rules would require the sponsor of a TOB Trust to retain at least 5% of the credit risk of the underlying assets supporting the TOB Trust’s Municipal Bonds. The Risk Retention Rules may adversely affect the Trusts’ ability to engage in TOB Trust transactions or increase the costs of such transactions in certain circumstances.

TOB Trust transactions constitute an important component of the municipal bond market. Accordingly, implementation of the Volcker Rule may adversely impact the municipal market, including through reduced demand for and liquidity of municipal bonds and increased financing costs for municipal issuers. Any such developments could adversely affect the Trusts. The ultimate impact of these rules on the TOB market and the overall municipal market is not yet certain.

Counterparty Credit Risk: Similar to issuer credit risk, the Trusts may be exposed to counterparty credit risk, or the risk that an entity may fail to or be unable to perform on its commitments related to unsettled or open transactions. The Trusts manage counterparty credit risk by entering into transactions only with counterparties that the Manager believes have the financial resources to honor their obligations and by monitoring the financial stability of those counterparties. Financial assets, which potentially expose the Trusts to market, issuer and counterparty credit risks, consist principally of financial instruments and receivables due from counterparties. The extent of the Trusts’ exposure to market, issuer and counterparty credit risks with respect to these financial assets is approximately their value recorded in the Statements of Assets and Liabilities, less any collateral held by the Trusts.

Concentration Risk: BJZ and BLH invest a substantial amount of their assets in issuers located in a single state or limited number of states. This may subject each Trust to the risk that economic, political or social issues impacting a particular state or group of states could have an adverse and disproportionate impact on the income from, or the value or liquidity of, the Trusts’ respective portfolios. Investment percentages in specific states or U.S. territories are presented in the Schedules of Investments.

As of period end, certain Trusts invested a significant portion of their assets in securities in the utilities and county, city, special district and school district sectors. Changes in economic conditions affecting such sectors would have a greater impact on the Trusts and could affect the value, income and/or liquidity of positions in such securities.

ANNUAL REPORT DECEMBER 31, 2015 33

Notes to Financial Statements (continued)

The Trusts invest a significant portion of their assets in fixed-income securities and/or use derivatives tied to the fixed-income markets. Changes in market interest rates or economic conditions may affect the value and/or liquidity of such investments. Interest rate risk is the risk that prices of bonds and other fixed-income securities will increase as interest rates fall and decrease as interest rates rise. The Trusts may be subject to a greater risk of rising interest rates due to the current period of historically low rates.

9. Capital Share Transactions:

Each Trust is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares, all of which were initially classified as Common Shares. The par value for each Trust’s Common Shares is $0.001. The Board is authorized, however, to reclassify any unissued Common Shares to Preferred Shares without approval of Common Shareholders.

Common Shares

For the years ended December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, shares issued and outstanding remained constant for all Trusts.

Preferred Shares

Each Trust’s Preferred Shares rank prior to the Trust’s Common Shares as to the payment of dividends by the Trust and distribution of assets upon dissolution or liquidation of a Trust. The 1940 Act prohibits the declaration of any dividend on a Trust’s Common Shares or the repurchase of a Trust’s Common Shares if a Trust fails to maintain the asset coverage of at least 200% of the liquidation preference of the outstanding Preferred Shares. In addition, pursuant to the Preferred Shares’ governing instruments, a Trust is restricted from declaring and paying dividends on classes of shares ranking junior to or on parity with the Preferred Shares or repurchasing such shares if a Trust fails to declare and pay dividends on the Preferred Shares, redeem any Preferred Shares required to be redeemed under the Preferred Shares’ governing instruments or comply with the basic maintenance amount requirement of the agencies rating the Preferred Shares.

The holders of Preferred Shares have voting rights equal to the holders of Common Shares (one vote per share) and will vote together with holders of Common Shares (one vote per share) as a single class. However, the holders of Preferred Shares, voting as a separate class, are also entitled to elect two Directors for each Trust. In addition, the 1940 Act requires that along with approval by shareholders that might otherwise be required, the approval of the holders of a majority of any outstanding Preferred Shares, voting separately as a class would be required to (a) adopt any plan of reorganization that would adversely affect the Preferred Shares, (b) change a Trust’s sub-classification as a closed-end investment company or change its fundamental investment restrictions or (c) change its business so as to cease to be an investment company.

AMPS

The AMPS were redeemable at the option of each Trust, in whole or in part, on any dividend payment date at their liquidation preference per share plus any accumulated and unpaid dividends whether or not declared. The AMPS were also subject to mandatory redemption at their liquidation preference plus any accumulated and unpaid dividends, whether or not declared, if certain requirements relating to the composition of the assets and liabilities of a Trust, as set forth in each Trust’s Statement of Preferences (the “Governing Instrument”) were not satisfied.

Dividends on seven-day AMPS were cumulative at a rate which was reset every seven days based on the results of an auction. If the AMPS failed to clear the auction on an auction date, each Trust was required to pay the maximum applicable rate on the AMPS to holders of such shares for successive dividend periods until such time as the shares were successfully auctioned. The maximum applicable rate on the AMPS was as footnoted in the table below. The low, high and average dividend rates on the AMPS for the period were as follows:

	Series		Low		High		Average
BLH		T7		0.10%		0.17%		0.12%

From February 13, 2008 to the redemption date listed below, the AMPS of BLH failed to clear any of their auctions. As a result, the AMPS dividend rates were reset to the maximum applicable rate, which ranged from 0.10% to 0.17% for the year ended December 31, 2015. A failed auction was not an event of default, but it had negative impact on the liquidity of AMPS. A failed auction occurs when there are more sellers of a Trust’s AMPS than buyers.

BLH paid commissions of 0.15% on the aggregate principal amount of all shares that fail to cleared their auctions and 0.25% on the aggregate principal amount of all shares that successfully cleared their auctions. Certain broker dealers have individually agreed to reduce commissions for failed auctions. The commissions paid to these broker dealers are included in remarketing fees on Preferred Shares in the Statements of Operations.

34 ANNUAL REPORT DECEMBER 31, 2015

Notes to Financial Statements (concluded)

During the period, BLH announced the following redemptions of AMPS at a price of $25,000 per share plus any accrued and unpaid dividends through the redemption date:

	Series		Redemption Date		Shares Redeemed		Aggregate Principal
BLH		T7		3/18/15		482	$	12,050,000

As of December 31, 2015, the Trusts did not have any AMPS outstanding.

During the year ended December 31, 2014, the Trusts announced the following redemptions of AMPS at a price of $25,000 per share plus any accrued and unpaid dividends through the redemption date:

	Series		Redemption Date		Shares Redeemed		Aggregate Principal
BJZ		M7		1/21/14		350	$	8,750,000
		M7		3/04/14		525	$	13,125,000
		M7		4/22/14		100	$	2,500,000
		M7		6/10/14		99	$	2,475,000
BPK		R7		1/03/14		105	$	2,625,000
		R7		1/17/14		155	$	3,875,000
		R7		6/06/14		15	$	375,000
		R7		11/07/14		105	$	2,625,000
		R7		12/26/14		550	$	13,750,000
		W7		1/02/14		105	$	2,625,000
		W7		1/16/14		155	$	3,875,000
		W7		6/05/14		15	$	375,000
		W7		11/06/14		105	$	2,625,000
		W7		12/26/14		550	$	13,750,000
		R7		1/02/15		455	$	11,375,000
		W7		1/02/15		455	$	11,375,000
BLH		T7		6/11/14		75	$	1,875,000
		T7		7/02/14		100	$	2,500,000

10. Subsequent Events:

Management’s evaluation of the impact of all subsequent events on the Trusts’ financial statements was completed through the date the financial statements were issued and the following items were noted:

The Trusts paid a net investment income dividend in the following amounts per share on February 1, 2016 to shareholders of record on January 15, 2016:

	Common Dividend Per Share
BJZ	$	0.0277
BPK	$	0.0470
BLH	$	0.0256

Additionally, the Trusts declared a net investment income dividend on February 1, 2016 payable to Common Shareholders of record on February 16, 2016 for the same amounts noted above.

ANNUAL REPORT DECEMBER 31, 2015 35

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Trustees and Shareholders of BlackRock California Municipal 2018 Term Trust,

BlackRock Municipal 2018 Term Trust and BlackRock New York Municipal 2018 Term Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statements of assets and liabilities of BlackRock California Municipal 2018 Term Trust, BlackRock Municipal 2018 Term Trust and BlackRock New York Municipal 2018 Term Trust (collectively, the “Trusts”), including the schedules of investments, as of December 31, 2015, and the related statements of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trusts’ management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trusts are not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of their internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trusts’ internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2015, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; where replies were not received from brokers, we performed other auditing procedures. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, such financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Trusts as of December 31, 2015, the results of their operations for the year then ended, the changes in their net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 24, 2016

36 ANNUAL REPORT DECEMBER 31, 2015

Automatic Dividend Reinvestment Plan

Pursuant to each Trust’s Dividend Reinvestment Plan (the “Reinvestment Plan”), Common Shareholders are automatically enrolled to have all distributions of dividends and capital gains reinvested by Computershare Trust Company, N.A. (the “Reinvestment Plan Agent”) in the respective Trust’s shares pursuant to the Reinvestment Plan. Shareholders who do not participate in the Reinvestment Plan will receive all distributions in cash paid by check and mailed directly to the shareholders of record (or if the shares are held in street name or other nominee name, then to the nominee) by the Reinvestment Plan Agent, which serves as agent for the shareholders in administering the Reinvestment Plan.

After the Trusts declare a dividend or determine to make a capital gain distribution, the Reinvestment Plan Agent will acquire shares for the participants’ accounts by the purchase of outstanding shares on the open market or on the Trusts’ primary exchange (“open-market purchases”). The Trusts will not issue any new shares under the Reinvestment Plan.

Participation in the Reinvestment Plan is completely voluntary and may be terminated or resumed at any time without penalty by notice if received and processed by the Reinvestment Plan Agent prior to the dividend record date. Additionally, the Reinvestment Plan Agent seeks to process notices received after the record date but prior to the payable date and such notices often will become effective by the payable date. Where late notices are not processed by the applicable payable date, such termination or resumption will be effective with respect to any subsequently declared dividend or other distribution.

The Reinvestment Plan Agent’s fees for the handling of the reinvestment of distributions will be paid by each Trust. However, each participant will pay a pro rata share of brokerage commissions incurred with respect to the Reinvestment Plan Agent’s open market purchases in connection with the reinvestment of all distributions. The automatic reinvestment of all distributions will not relieve participants of any federal income tax that may be payable on such dividends or distributions.

Each Trust reserves the right to amend or terminate the Reinvestment Plan. There is no direct service charge to participants in the Reinvestment Plan; however, each Trust reserves the right to amend the Reinvestment Plan to include a service charge payable by the participants. Participants that request a sale of shares are subject to a $2.50 sales fee and a $0.15 per share fee. Per share fees include any applicable brokerage commissions the Reinvestment Plan Agent is required to pay. All correspondence concerning the Reinvestment Plan should be directed to Computershare Trust Company, N.A. through the internet at http://www.computershare.com/blackrock, or in writing to Computershare, P.O. Box 30170, College Station, TX 77842-3170, Telephone: (800) 699-1236. Overnight correspondence should be directed to the Reinvestment Plan Agent at Computershare, 211 Quality Circle, Suite 210, College Station, TX 77845.

ANNUAL REPORT DECEMBER 31, 2015 37

Officers and Trustees

Name, Address1 and Year of Birth	Position(s) Held with the Trusts	Length of Time Served as a Trustee3	Principal Occupation(s) During Past Five Years	Number of BlackRock- Advised Registered Investment Companies (“RICs”) Consisting of Investment Portfolios (“Portfolios”) Overseen4	Public Directorships
Independent Trustees2
Richard E. Cavanagh 1946	Chair of the Board and Trustee	Since 2007	Trustee, Aircraft Finance Trust from 1999 to 2009; Director, The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America since 1998; Director, Arch Chemical (chemical and allied products) from 1999 to 2011; Trustee, Educational Testing Service from 1997 to 2009 and Chairman thereof from 2005 to 2009; Senior Advisor, The Fremont Group since 2008 and Director thereof since 1996; Faculty Member/Adjunct Lecturer, Harvard University since 2007; President and Chief Executive Officer, The Conference Board, Inc. (global business research organization) from 1995 to 2007.	75 RICs consisting of 75 Portfolios	None
Karen P. Robards 1950	Vice Chairperson of the Board, Chairperson of the Audit Committee and Trustee	Since 2007	Partner of Robards & Company, LLC (financial advisory firm) since 1987; Co-founder and Director of the Cooke Center for Learning and Development (a not-for-profit organization) since 1987; Director of Care Investment Trust, Inc. (health care real estate investment trust) from 2007 to 2010; Investment Banker at Morgan Stanley from 1976 to 1987.	75 RICs consisting of 75 Portfolios	AtriCure, Inc. (medical devices); Greenhill & Co., Inc.
Michael J. Castellano 1946	Trustee and Member of the Audit Committee	Since 2011	Chief Financial Officer of Lazard Group LLC from 2001 to 2011; Chief Financial Officer of Lazard Ltd from 2004 to 2011; Director, Support Our Aging Religious (non-profit) from 2009 to June 2015; Director, National Advisory Board of Church Management at Villanova University since 2010; Trustee, Domestic Church Media Foundation since 2012; Director, CircleBlack Inc. (financial technology company) since 2015.	75 RICs consisting of 75 Portfolios	None
Frank J. Fabozzi4 1948	Trustee and Member of the Audit Committee	Since 2007	Editor of and Consultant for The Journal of Portfolio Management since 2006; Professor of Finance, EDHEC Business School since 2011; Visiting Professor, Princeton University from 2013 to 2014; Professor in the Practice of Finance and Becton Fellow, Yale University School of Management from 2006 to 2011.	108 RICs consisting of 230 Portfolios	None
Kathleen F. Feldstein 1941	Trustee	Since 2007	President of Economics Studies, Inc. (private economic consulting firm) since 1987; Chair, Board of Trustees, McLean Hospital from 2000 to 2008 and Trustee Emeritus thereof since 2008; Member of the Board of Partners Community Healthcare, Inc. from 2005 to 2009; Member of the Corporation of Partners HealthCare since 1995; Trustee, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston since 1992; Member of the Visiting Committee to the Harvard University Art Museum since 2003; Director, Catholic Charities of Boston since 2009.	75 RICs consisting of 75 Portfolios	The McClatchy Company (publishing)
James T. Flynn 1939	Trustee and Member of the Audit Committee	Since 2007	Chief Financial Officer of JPMorgan & Co., Inc. from 1990 to 1995.	75 RICs consisting of 75 Portfolios	None
Jerrold B. Harris 1942	Trustee	Since 2007	Trustee, Ursinus College from 2000 to 2012; Director, Waterfowl Chesapeake (conservation) since 2014; Director, Ducks Unlimited, Inc. (conservation) since 2013; Director, Troemner LLC (scientific equipment) since 2000; Director of Delta Waterfowl Foundation from 2010 to 2012; President and Chief Executive Officer, VWR Scientific Products Corporation from 1990 to 1999.	75 RICs consisting of 75 Portfolios	BlackRock Capital Investment Corp. (business development company)
R. Glenn Hubbard 1958	Trustee	Since 2007	Dean, Columbia Business School since 2004; Faculty member, Columbia Business School since 1988.	75 RICs consisting of 75 Portfolios	ADP (data and information services); Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (insurance)

38 ANNUAL REPORT DECEMBER 31, 2015

Officers and Trustees (continued)

Name, Address1 and Year of Birth	Position(s) Held with the Trusts	Length of Time Served as a Trustee3	Principal Occupation(s) During Past Five Years	Number of BlackRock- Advised Registered Investment Companies (“RICs”) Consisting of Investment Portfolios (“Portfolios”) Overseen4	Public Directorships
Independent Trustees2 (concluded)
W. Carl Kester 1951	Trustee and Member of the Audit Committee	Since 2007	George Fisher Baker Jr. Professor of Business Administration, Harvard Business School since 2008, Deputy Dean for Academic Affairs from 2006 to 2010, Chairman of the Finance Unit, from 2005 to 2006, Senior Associate Dean and Chairman of the MBA Program from 1999 to 2005; Member of the faculty of Harvard Business School since 1981.	75 RICs consisting of 75 Portfolios	None
	1   The address of each Trustee is c/o BlackRock, Inc., 55 East 52nd Street, New York, NY 10055.
	2   Independent Trustees serve until their resignation, retirement, removal or death, or until December 31 of the year in which they turn 74. The maximum age limitation may be waived as to any Trustee by action of a majority of the Trustees upon finding of good cause thereof. The Board of Trustees has unanimously approved further extending the mandatory retirement age for Mr. James T. Flynn until December 31, 2015, which the Board believes is in the best interest of shareholders.
	3   Date shown is the earliest date a person has served for the Funds in the Closed-End Complex. Following the combination of Merrill Lynch Investment Managers, L.P. (“MLIM”) and BlackRock, Inc. (“BlackRock”) in September 2006, the various legacy MLIM and legacy BlackRock fund boards were realigned and consolidated into three new fund boards in 2007. As a result, although the chart shows certain Trustees as joining the Trust’s board in 2007, those Trustees first became members of the boards of other legacy MLIM or legacy BlackRock funds as follows: Richard E. Cavanagh, 1994; Frank J. Fabozzi, 1988; Kathleen F. Feldstein, 2005; James T. Flynn, 1996; Jerrold B. Harris, 1999; R. Glenn Hubbard, 2004; W. Carl Kester, 1995 and Karen P. Robards, 1998.
	4   For purposes of this chart, “RICs” refers to investment companies registered under the 1940 Act and “Portfolios” refers to the investment programs of the BlackRock-advised funds. The Closed-End Complex is comprised of 75 RICs. Mr. Perlowski, Dr. Fabozzi and Ms. Novick are also board members of a complex of BlackRock registered open-end funds. Mr. Perlowski is also a board member of the BlackRock Equity-Bond Complex and the Equity-Liquidity Complex, and Ms. Novick and Dr. Fabozzi are also board members of the BlackRock Equity-Liquidity Complex.
Interested Trustees5
Barbara G. Novick 1960	Trustee	Since 2014	Vice Chairman of BlackRock since 2006; Chair of BlackRock’s Government Relations Steering Committee since 2009; Head of the Global Client Group of BlackRock from 1988 to 2008.	108 RICs consisting of 230 Portfolios	None
John M. Perlowski 1964	Trustee, President and Chief Executive Officer	Since 2014 (Trustee); Since 2011 (President and Chief Executive Officer)	Managing Director of BlackRock since 2009; Head of BlackRock Global Fund Services since 2009; Managing Director and Chief Operating Officer of the Global Product Group at Goldman Sachs Asset Management, L.P. from 2003 to 2009; Treasurer of Goldman Sachs Mutual Funds from 2003 to 2009 and Senior Vice President thereof from 2007 to 2009; Director of Goldman Sachs Offshore Funds from 2002 to 2009; Director of Family Resource Network (charitable foundation) since 2009.	136 RICs consisting of 328 Portfolios	None
	5   Mr. Perlowski and Ms. Novick are both “interested persons,” as defined in the 1940 Act, of the Trusts based on their positions with BlackRock and its affiliate. Mr. Perlowski and Ms. Novick are also board members of a complex of BlackRock registered open-end funds. Mr. Perlowski is also a board member of the BlackRock Equity-Bond Complex and the BlackRock Equity-Liquidity Complex, and Ms. Novick is a board member of the BlackRock Equity-Liquidity Complex. Interested Trustees serve until their resignation, removal or death, or until December 31 of the year in which they turn 72. The maximum age limitation may be waived as to any Trustee by action of a majority of the Trustees upon a finding of good cause thereof.

ANNUAL REPORT DECEMBER 31, 2015 39

Officers and Trustees (concluded)

Name, Address1 and Year of Birth	Position(s) Held with the Trusts	Length of Time Served as an officer	Principal Occupation(s) During Past Five Years
Officers2
John M. Perlowski 1964	Trustee, President and Chief Executive Officer	Since 2014 (Trustee); Since 2011 (President and Chief Executive Officer)	Managing Director of BlackRock since 2009; Head of BlackRock Global Fund Services since 2009; Managing Director and Chief Operating Officer of the Global Product Group at Goldman Sachs Asset Management, L.P. from 2003 to 2009; Treasurer of Goldman Sachs Mutual Funds from 2003 to 2009 and Senior Vice President thereof from 2007 to 2009; Director of Goldman Sachs Offshore Funds from 2002 to 2009; Director of Family Resource Network (charitable foundation) since 2009.
Jonathan Diorio 1980	Vice President	Since 2015	Managing Director of BlackRock since 2015; Director of BlackRock, Inc. from 2011 to 2015; Director of Deutsche Asset & Wealth Management from 2009 to 2011.
Neal Andrews 1966	Chief Financial Officer	Since 2007	Managing Director of BlackRock since 2006; Senior Vice President and Line of Business Head of Fund Accounting and Administration at PNC Global Investment Servicing (U.S.) Inc. from 1992 to 2006.
Jay Fife 1970	Treasurer	Since 2007	Managing Director of BlackRock since 2007; Director of BlackRock in 2006; Assistant Treasurer of the MLIM and Fund Asset Management, L.P. advised funds from 2005 to 2006; Director of MLIM Fund Services Group from 2001 to 2006.
Charles Park 1967	Chief Compliance Officer	Since 2014	Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Officer for the BlackRock-advised Funds in the Equity-Bond Complex, the Equity-Liquidity Complex and the Closed-End Complex from 2014 to 2015; Chief Compliance Officer of BlackRock Advisors, LLC and the BlackRock-advised Funds in the Equity-Bond Complex, the Equity-Liquidity Complex and the Closed-End Complex since 2014; Principal of and Chief Compliance Officer for iShares® Delaware Trust Sponsor LLC since 2012 and BlackRock Fund Advisors (“BFA”) since 2006; Chief Compliance Officer for the BFA-advised iShares exchange traded funds since 2006; Chief Compliance Officer for BlackRock Asset Management International Inc. since 2012.
Janey Ahn 1975	Secretary	Since 2012	Director of BlackRock since 2009; Vice President of BlackRock from 2008 to 2009; Assistant Secretary of the Funds from 2008 to 2012.
	1    The address of each Officer is c/o BlackRock, Inc., 55 East 52nd Street, New York, NY 10055.
	2    Officers of the Trusts serve at the pleasure of the Board.

Effective September 18, 2015, Robert W. Crothers resigned as a Vice President of the Trusts and Jonathan Diorio became a Vice President of the Trusts.

Effective December 31, 2015, Kathleen F. Feldstein and James T. Flynn retired as Trustees of the Trusts.

Investment Advisor BlackRock Advisors, LLC Wilmington, DE 19809	Transfer Agent Computershare Trust Company, N.A. Canton, MA 02021	Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm Deloitte & Touche LLP Boston, MA 02116
Accounting Agent and Custodian State Street Bank and Trust Company Boston, MA 02110	Legal Counsel Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Boston, MA 02116	Address of the Trusts 100 Bellevue Parkway Wilmington, DE 19809

40 ANNUAL REPORT DECEMBER 31, 2015

Additional Information

Proxy Results

The Annual Meeting of Shareholders was held on July 29, 2015 for shareholders of record on June 1, 2015, to elect trustee nominees for each Trust. There were no broker non-votes with regard to any of the Trusts.

Approved the Trustees as follows:

	Frank J. Fabozzi1			James T. Flynn1			Barbara G. Novick2
	Votes For	Votes Withheld	Abstain	Votes For	Votes Withheld	Abstain	Votes For	Votes Withheld	Abstain
BJZ	6,026,431	104,576	0	6,025,224	105,783	0	6,026,431	104,576	0
BPK	14,976,036	168,868	0	14,988,623	156,281	0	14,956,989	187,915	0
BLH	3,074,888	197,321	0	3,074,888	197,321	0	3,074,888	197,321	0
	John M. Perlowski3			Karen P. Robards1
	Votes For	Votes Withheld	Abstain	Votes For	Votes Withheld	Abstain
BJZ	6,015,052	115,955	0	6,026,267	104,740	0
BPK	14,965,938	178,966	0	14,942,319	202,585	0
BLH	3,074,888	197,321	0	3,074,888	197,321	0

¹  Class II

²  Class III

³  Class I

For the Trusts listed above, Trustees whose term of office continued after the Annual Meeting of Shareholders because they were not up for election are Michael J. Castellano, Richard E. Cavanagh, Kathleen F. Feldstein, Jerrold B. Harris, R. Glenn Hubbard and W. Carl Kester.

Trust Certification

The Trusts are listed for trading on the NYSE and have filed with the NYSE their annual chief executive officer certification regarding compliance with the NYSE’s listing standards. The Trusts filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) the certification of its chief executive officer and chief financial officer required by section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

Dividend Policy

Each Trust’s dividend policy is to distribute all or a portion of its net investment income to its shareholders on a monthly basis. In order to provide shareholders with a more stable level of dividend distributions, the Trusts may at times pay out less than the entire amount of net investment income earned in any particular month and may at times in any particular month pay out such accumulated but undistributed income in addition to net investment income earned in that month. As a result, the distributions paid by the Trusts for any particular month may be more or less than the amount of net investment income earned by the Trusts during such month. The Trusts’ current accumulated but undistributed net investment income, if any, is disclosed in the Statements of Assets and Liabilities, which comprises part of the financial information included in this report.

ANNUAL REPORT DECEMBER 31, 2015 41

Additional Information (continued)

General Information

The Trusts do not make available copies of their Statements of Additional Information because the Trusts’ shares are not continuously offered, which means that the Statement of Additional Information of each Trust has not been updated after completion of the respective Trust’s offerings and the information contained in each Trust’s Statement of Additional Information may have become outdated.

During the period, there were no material changes in the Trusts’ investment objectives or policies or to the Trusts’ charters or by-laws that would delay or prevent a change of control of the Trusts that were not approved by the shareholders or in the principal risk factors associated with investment in the Trusts. There have been no changes in the persons who are primarily responsible for the day-to-day management of the Trusts’ portfolios.

Quarterly performance, semi-annual and annual reports, current net asset value and other information regarding the Trusts may be found on BlackRock’s website, which can be accessed at http://www.blackrock.com. This reference to BlackRock’s website is intended to allow investors public access to information regarding the Trusts and does not, and is not intended to, incorporate BlackRock’s website in this report.

Electronic Delivery

Shareholders can sign up for e-mail notifications of quarterly statements, annual and semi-annual shareholder reports by enrolling in the electronic delivery program. Electronic copies of shareholder reports are available on BlackRock’s website.

To enroll in electronic delivery:

Shareholders Who Hold Accounts with Investment Advisors, Banks or Brokerages:

Please contact your financial advisor. Please note that not all investment advisors, banks or brokerages may offer this service.

Householding

The Trusts will mail only one copy of shareholder documents, including annual and semi-annual reports and proxy statements, to shareholders with multiple accounts at the same address. This practice is commonly called “householding” and is intended to reduce expenses and eliminate duplicate mailings of shareholder documents. Mailings of your shareholder documents may be householded indefinitely unless you instruct us otherwise. If you do not want the mailing of these documents to be combined with those for other members of your household, please call the Trusts at (800) 882-0052.

Availability of Quarterly Schedule of Investments

The Trusts file their complete schedule of portfolio holdings with the SEC for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year on Form N-Q. The Trusts’ Forms N-Q are available on the SEC’s website at http://www.sec.gov and may also be reviewed and copied at the SEC’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. Information on how to access documents on the SEC’s website without charge may be obtained by calling (800) SEC-0330. The Trusts’ Forms N-Q may also be obtained upon request and without charge by calling (800) 882-0052.

Availability of Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trusts use to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available upon request and without charge (1) by calling (800) 882-0052; (2) at http://www.blackrock.com; and (3) on the SEC’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Availability of Proxy Voting Record

Information about how the Trusts voted proxies relating to securities held in the Trusts’ portfolios during the most recent 12-month period ended June 30 is available upon request and without charge (1) at http://www.blackrock.com; or by calling (800) 882-0052 and (2) on the SEC’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Availability of Trust Updates

BlackRock will update performance and certain other data for the Trusts on a monthly basis on its website in the “Closed-end Funds” section of http://www.blackrock.com as well as certain other material information as necessary from time to time. Investors and others are advised to check the website for updated performance information and the release of other material information about the Trusts. This reference to BlackRock’s website is intended to allow investors public access to information regarding the Trusts and does not, and is not intended to, incorporate BlackRock’s website in this report.

42 ANNUAL REPORT DECEMBER 31, 2015

Additional Information (concluded)

BlackRock Privacy Principles

BlackRock is committed to maintaining the privacy of its current and former fund investors and individual clients (collectively, “Clients”) and to safeguarding their non-public personal information. The following information is provided to help you understand what personal information BlackRock collects, how we protect that information and why in certain cases we share such information with select parties.

If you are located in a jurisdiction where specific laws, rules or regulations require BlackRock to provide you with additional or different privacy-related rights beyond what is set forth below, then BlackRock will comply with those specific laws, rules or regulations.

BlackRock obtains or verifies personal non-public information from and about you from different sources, including the following: (i) information we receive from you or, if applicable, your financial intermediary, on applications, forms or other documents; (ii) information about your transactions with us, our affiliates, or others; (iii) information we receive from a consumer reporting agency; and (iv) from visits to our websites.

BlackRock does not sell or disclose to non-affiliated third parties any non-public personal information about its Clients, except as permitted by law or as is necessary to respond to regulatory requests or to service Client accounts. These non-affiliated third parties are required to protect the confidentiality and security of this information and to use it only for its intended purpose.

We may share information with our affiliates to service your account or to provide you with information about other BlackRock products or services that may be of interest to you. In addition, BlackRock restricts access to non-public personal information about its Clients to those BlackRock employees with a legitimate business need for the information. BlackRock maintains physical, electronic and procedural safeguards that are designed to protect the non-public personal information of its Clients, including procedures relating to the proper storage and disposal of such information.

ANNUAL REPORT DECEMBER 31, 2015 43

This report is intended for current holders. It is not a prospectus. Past performance results shown in this report should not be considered a representation of future performance. The Trusts have leveraged their Common Shares, which creates risks for Common Shareholders, including the likelihood of greater volatility of net asset value and market price of the Common Shares, and the risk that fluctuations in short-term interest rates may reduce the Common Shares’ yield. Statements and other information herein are as dated and are subject to change.

CEF-BK3-12/15-AR

Item 2 – Code of Ethics – The registrant (or the “Fund”) has adopted a code of ethics, as of the end of the period covered by this report, applicable to the registrant’s principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer or controller, or persons performing similar functions. During the period covered by this report, the code of ethics was amended to update certain information and to make other non-material changes. During the period covered by this report, there have been no waivers granted under the code of ethics. The registrant undertakes to provide a copy of the code of ethics to any person upon request, without charge, by calling 1-800-882-0052, option 4.

Item 3 – Audit Committee Financial Expert – The registrant’s board of directors (the “board of directors”), has determined that (i) the registrant has the following audit committee financial experts serving on its audit committee and (ii) each audit committee financial expert is independent:

Michael Castellano

Frank J. Fabozzi

James T. Flynn

W. Carl Kester

Karen P. Robards

The registrant’s board of directors has determined that W. Carl Kester and Karen P. Robards qualify as financial experts pursuant to Item 3(c)(4) of Form N-CSR.

Prof. Kester has a thorough understanding of generally accepted accounting principles, financial statements and internal control over financial reporting as well as audit committee functions. Prof. Kester has been involved in providing valuation and other financial consulting services to corporate clients since 1978. Prof. Kester’s financial consulting services present a breadth and level of complexity of accounting issues that are generally comparable to the breadth and complexity of issues that can reasonably be expected to be raised by the registrant’s financial statements.

Ms. Robards has a thorough understanding of generally accepted accounting principles, financial statements and internal control over financial reporting as well as audit committee functions. Ms. Robards has been President of Robards & Company, a financial advisory firm, since 1987. Ms. Robards was formerly an investment banker for more than 10 years where she was responsible for evaluating and assessing the performance of companies based on their financial results. Ms. Robards has over 30 years of experience analyzing financial statements. She also is a member of the audit committee of one publicly held company and a non-profit organization.

Under applicable securities laws, a person determined to be an audit committee financial expert will not be deemed an “expert” for any purpose, including without limitation for the purposes of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as a result of being designated or identified as an audit committee financial expert. The designation or identification as an audit committee financial expert does not impose on such person any duties, obligations, or liabilities greater than the duties, obligations, and liabilities imposed on such person as a member of the audit committee and board of directors in the absence of such designation or identification. The designation or identification of a person as an audit committee financial expert does not affect the duties, obligations, or liability of any other member of the audit committee or board of directors.

2

Item 4 – Principal Accountant Fees and Services

The following table presents fees billed by Deloitte & Touche LLP (“D&T”) in each of the last two fiscal years for the services rendered to the Fund:

	(a) Audit Fees		(b) Audit-Related Fees1		(c) Tax Fees2		(d) All Other Fees3
Entity Name	Current Fiscal Year End	Previous Fiscal Year End	Current Fiscal Year End	Previous Fiscal Year End	Current Fiscal Year End	Previous Fiscal Year End	Current Fiscal Year End	Previous Fiscal Year End
BlackRock New York Municipal 2018 Term Trust	$28,938	$29,051	$0	$0	$8,262	$8,100	$0	$0

The following table presents fees billed by D&T that were required to be approved by the registrant’s audit committee (the “Committee”) for services that relate directly to the operations or financial reporting of the Fund and that are rendered on behalf of BlackRock Advisors, LLC (“Investment Adviser” or “BlackRock”) and entities controlling, controlled by, or under common control with BlackRock (not including any sub-adviser whose role is primarily portfolio management and is subcontracted with or overseen by another investment adviser) that provide ongoing services to the Fund (“Fund Service Providers”):

	Current Fiscal Year End	Previous Fiscal Year End
(b) Audit-Related Fees1	$0	$0
(c) Tax Fees2	$0	$0
(d) All Other Fees3	$2,391,000	$2,555,000

¹ The nature of the services includes assurance and related services reasonably related to the performance of the audit of financial statements not included in Audit Fees.

² The nature of the services includes tax compliance, tax advice and tax planning.

³ Aggregate fees borne by BlackRock in connection with the review of compliance procedures and attestation thereto performed by D&T with respect to all of the registered closed-end funds and some of the registered open-end funds advised by BlackRock.

(e)(1) Audit Committee Pre-Approval Policies and Procedures:

The Committee has adopted policies and procedures with regard to the pre-approval of services. Audit, audit-related and tax compliance services provided to the registrant on an annual basis require specific pre-approval by the Committee. The Committee also must approve other non-audit services provided to the registrant and those non-audit services provided to the Investment Adviser and Fund Service Providers that relate directly to the operations and the financial reporting of the registrant. Certain of these non-audit services that the Committee believes are (a) consistent with the SEC’s auditor independence rules and (b) routine and recurring services that will not impair the independence of the independent accountants may be approved by the Committee without consideration on a specific case-by-case basis (“general pre-approval”). The term of any general pre-approval is 12 months from the date of the pre-approval, unless the Committee provides for a different period. Tax or other non-audit services provided to the registrant which have a direct impact on the operations or financial reporting of the registrant will only be deemed pre-approved provided that any individual project does not exceed $10,000 attributable to the registrant or $50,000 per project. For this purpose, multiple projects will be aggregated to determine if they exceed the previously mentioned cost levels.

Any proposed services exceeding the pre-approved cost levels will require specific pre-approval by the Committee, as will any other services not subject to general pre-approval (e.g.,

3

unanticipated but permissible services). The Committee is informed of each service approved subject to general pre-approval at the next regularly scheduled in-person board meeting. At this meeting, an analysis of such services is presented to the Committee for ratification. The Committee may delegate to the Committee Chairman the authority to approve the provision of and fees for any specific engagement of permitted non-audit services, including services exceeding pre-approved cost levels.

(e)(2) None of the services described in each of Items 4(b) through (d) were approved by the Committee pursuant to the de minimis exception in paragraph (c)(7)(i)(C) of Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X.

(f) Not Applicable

(g) The aggregate non-audit fees paid to the accountant for services rendered by the accountant to the registrant, the Investment Adviser and the Fund Service Providers were:

Entity Name	Current Fiscal Year End	Previous Fiscal Year End
BlackRock New York Municipal 2018 Term Trust	$8,262	$8,100

Additionally, SSAE 16 Review (Formerly, SAS No. 70) fees for the current and previous fiscal years of $2,391,000 and $2,555,000, respectively, were billed by D&T to the Investment Adviser.

(h) The Committee has considered and determined that the provision of non-audit services that were rendered to the Investment Adviser, and the Fund Service Providers that were not pre-approved pursuant to paragraph (c)(7)(ii) of Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X is compatible with maintaining the principal accountant’s independence.

Item 5 – Audit Committee of Listed Registrants

(a) The following individuals are members of the registrant’s separately-designated standing audit committee established in accordance with Section 3(a)(58)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(58)(A)):

Michael Castellano

Frank J. Fabozzi

James T. Flynn

W. Carl Kester

Karen P. Robards

(b) Not Applicable

Item 6 – Investments

(a) The registrant’s Schedule of Investments is included as part of the Report to Stockholders filed under Item 1 of this Form.

4

(b) Not Applicable due to no such divestments during the semi-annual period covered since the previous Form N-CSR filing.

Item 7 –  Disclosure of Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures for Closed-End Management Investment Companies – The board of directors has delegated the voting of proxies for the Fund’s portfolio securities to the Investment Adviser pursuant to the Investment Adviser’s proxy voting guidelines. Under these guidelines, the Investment Adviser will vote proxies related to Fund securities in the best interests of the Fund and its stockholders. From time to time, a vote may present a conflict between the interests of the Fund’s stockholders, on the one hand, and those of the Investment Adviser, or any affiliated person of the Fund or the Investment Adviser, on the other. In such event, provided that the Investment Adviser’s Equity Investment Policy Oversight Committee, or a sub-committee thereof (the “Oversight Committee”) is aware of the real or potential conflict or material non-routine matter and if the Oversight Committee does not reasonably believe it is able to follow its general voting guidelines (or if the particular proxy matter is not addressed in the guidelines) and vote impartially, the Oversight Committee may retain an independent fiduciary to advise the Oversight Committee on how to vote or to cast votes on behalf of the Investment Adviser’s clients. If the Investment Adviser determines not to retain an independent fiduciary, or does not desire to follow the advice of such independent fiduciary, the Oversight Committee shall determine how to vote the proxy after consulting with the Investment Adviser’s Portfolio Management Group and/or the Investment Adviser’s Legal and Compliance Department and concluding that the vote cast is in its client’s best interest notwithstanding the conflict. A copy of the Fund’s Proxy Voting Policy and Procedures are attached as Exhibit 99.PROXYPOL. Information on how the Fund voted proxies relating to portfolio securities during the most recent 12-month period ended June 30 is available without charge, (i) at www.blackrock.com and (ii) on the SEC’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Item 8 – Portfolio Managers of Closed-End Management Investment Companies – as of December 31, 2015.

(a)(1) The registrant is managed by a team of investment professionals comprised of Phillip Soccio, CFA, Director at BlackRock, Theodore R. Jaeckel, Jr., CFA, Managing Director at BlackRock and Walter O’Connor, Managing Director at BlackRock. Messrs. Soccio, Jaeckel and O’Connor are the Fund’s portfolio managers and are responsible for the day-to-day management of the Fund’s portfolio and the selection of its investments. Messrs. Soccio, Jaeckel and O’Connor have been members of the registrant’s portfolio management team since 2011, 2006 and 2006, respectively.

Portfolio Manager	Biography
Phillip Soccio, CFA	Director of BlackRock since 2009; Vice President of BlackRock from 2005 to 2008.
Theodore R. Jaeckel, Jr.,           CFA	Managing Director of BlackRock since 2006; Managing Director of Merrill Lynch Investment Managers, L.P. (“MLIM”) from 2005 to 2006; Director of MLIM from 1997 to 2005.
Walter O’Connor	Managing Director of BlackRock since 2006; Managing Director of MLIM from 2003 to 2006; Director of MLIM from 1998 to 2003.

5

(a)(2) As of December 31, 2015:

	(ii) Number of Other Accounts Managed and Assets by Account Type			(iii) Number of Other Accounts and Assets for Which Advisory Fee is Performance-Based
(i) Name of Portfolio Manager	Other         Registered         Investment         Companies	Other Pooled         Investment         Vehicles	Other         Accounts	Other         Registered         Investment         Companies	Other Pooled         Investment         Vehicles	Other         Accounts
Phillip Soccio, CFA	10	0	0	0	0	0
	$3.80 Billion	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0
Theodore R. Jaeckel, Jr., CFA	61	0	0	0	0	0
	$31.21	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0
Walter O’Connor	57	0	0	0	0	0
	$24.06 Billion	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0

(iv)    Portfolio Manager Potential Material Conflicts of Interest

  BlackRock has built a professional working environment, firm-wide compliance culture and compliance procedures and systems designed to protect against potential incentives that may favor one account over another. BlackRock has adopted policies and procedures that address the allocation of investment opportunities, execution of portfolio transactions, personal trading by employees and other potential conflicts of interest that are designed to ensure that all client accounts are treated equitably over time. Nevertheless, BlackRock furnishes investment management and advisory services to numerous clients in addition to the Fund, and BlackRock may, consistent with applicable law, make investment recommendations to other clients or accounts (including accounts which are hedge funds or have performance or higher fees paid to BlackRock, or in which portfolio managers have a personal interest in the receipt of such fees), which may be the same as or different from those made to the Fund. In addition, BlackRock, Inc., its affiliates and significant shareholders and any officer, director, shareholder or employee may or may not have an interest in the securities whose purchase and sale BlackRock recommends to the Fund. BlackRock, Inc., or any of its affiliates or significant shareholders, or any officer, director, shareholder, employee or any member of their families may take different actions than those recommended to the Fund by BlackRock with respect to the same securities. Moreover, BlackRock may refrain from rendering any advice or services concerning securities of companies of which any of BlackRock, Inc.’s (or its affiliates’ or significant shareholders’) officers, directors or employees are directors or officers, or companies as to which BlackRock, Inc. or any of its affiliates or significant shareholders or the officers, directors and employees of any of them has any substantial economic interest or possesses material non-public information. Certain portfolio managers also may manage accounts whose investment strategies may at times be opposed to the strategy utilized for a fund. It should also be noted that a portfolio manager may be managing hedge fund and/or long only accounts, or may be part of a team managing hedge fund and/or long only accounts, subject to incentive fees. Such portfolio managers may therefore be entitled to receive a portion of any incentive fees earned on such accounts. Currently, the portfolio managers of this Fund are not entitled to receive a portion of incentive fees of other accounts.

6

As a fiduciary, BlackRock owes a duty of loyalty to its clients and must treat each client fairly. When BlackRock purchases or sells securities for more than one account, the trades must be allocated in a manner consistent with its fiduciary duties. BlackRock attempts to allocate investments in a fair and equitable manner among client accounts, with no account receiving preferential treatment. To this end, BlackRock, Inc. has adopted policies that are intended to ensure reasonable efficiency in client transactions and provide BlackRock with sufficient flexibility to allocate investments in a manner that is consistent with the particular investment discipline and client base, as appropriate.

(a)(3) As of December 31, 2015:

Portfolio Manager Compensation Overview

The discussion below describes the portfolio managers’ compensation as of December 31, 2015.

BlackRock’s financial arrangements with its portfolio managers, its competitive compensation and its career path emphasis at all levels reflect the value senior management places on key resources. Compensation may include a variety of components and may vary from year to year based on a number of factors. The principal components of compensation include a base salary, a performance-based discretionary bonus, participation in various benefits programs and one or more of the incentive compensation programs established by BlackRock.

Base Compensation. Generally, portfolio managers receive base compensation based on their position with the firm.

Discretionary Incentive Compensation

Discretionary incentive compensation is a function of several components: the performance of BlackRock, Inc., the performance of the portfolio manager’s group within BlackRock, the investment performance, including risk-adjusted returns, of the firm’s assets under management or supervision by that portfolio manager relative to predetermined benchmarks, and the individual’s performance and contribution to the overall performance of these portfolios and BlackRock. In most cases, these benchmarks are the same as the benchmark or benchmarks against which the performance of the Funds or other accounts managed by the portfolio managers are measured. Among other things, BlackRock’s Chief Investment Officers make a subjective determination with respect to each portfolio manager’s compensation based on the performance of the Funds and other accounts managed by each portfolio manager relative to the various benchmarks. Performance of fixed income funds is measured on a pre-tax and/or after-tax basis over various time periods including 1-, 3- and 5- year periods, as applicable. With respect to these portfolio managers, the benchmarks for the Fund and other accounts are: A combination of market-based indices (e.g., Standard & Poor’s Municipal Bond Index), certain customized indices and certain fund industry peer groups.

Distribution of Discretionary Incentive Compensation. Discretionary incentive compensation is distributed to portfolio managers in a combination of cash and BlackRock, Inc. restricted stock units which vest ratably over a number of years. For some portfolio managers,

7

discretionary incentive compensation is also distributed in deferred cash awards that notionally track the returns of select BlackRock investment products they manage and that vest ratably over a number of years. The BlackRock, Inc. restricted stock units, upon vesting, will be settled in BlackRock, Inc. common stock. Typically, the cash portion of the discretionary incentive compensation, when combined with base salary, represents more than 60% of total compensation for the portfolio managers. Paying a portion of discretionary incentive compensation in BlackRock, Inc. stock puts compensation earned by a portfolio manager for a given year “at risk” based on BlackRock’s ability to sustain and improve its performance over future periods. Providing a portion of discretionary incentive compensation in deferred cash awards that notionally track the BlackRock investment products they manage provides direct alignment with investment product results.

Long-Term Incentive Plan Awards — From time to time long-term incentive equity awards are granted to certain key employees to aid in retention, align their interests with long-term shareholder interests and motivate performance. Equity awards are generally granted in the form of BlackRock, Inc. restricted stock units that, once vested, settle in BlackRock, Inc. common stock. The portfolio managers of this Fund have unvested long-term incentive awards.

Deferred Compensation Program — A portion of the compensation paid to eligible United States-based BlackRock employees may be voluntarily deferred at their election for defined periods of time into an account that tracks the performance of certain of the firm’s investment products. Any portfolio manager who is either a managing director or director at BlackRock with compensation above a specified threshold is eligible to participate in the deferred compensation program.

Other Compensation Benefits. In addition to base salary and discretionary incentive compensation, portfolio managers may be eligible to receive or participate in one or more of the following:

Incentive Savings Plans — BlackRock, Inc. has created a variety of incentive savings plans in which BlackRock, Inc. employees are eligible to participate, including a 401(k) plan, the BlackRock Retirement Savings Plan (RSP), and the BlackRock Employee Stock Purchase Plan (ESPP). The employer contribution components of the RSP include a company match equal to 50% of the first 8% of eligible pay contributed to the plan capped at $5,000 per year, and a company retirement contribution equal to 3-5% of eligible compensation up to the Internal Revenue Service limit ($265,000 for 2015). The RSP offers a range of investment options, including registered investment companies and collective investment funds managed by the firm. BlackRock, Inc. contributions follow the investment direction set by participants for their own contributions or, absent participant investment direction, are invested into a target date fund that corresponds to, or is closest to, the year in which the participant attains age 65. The ESPP allows for investment in BlackRock, Inc. common stock at a 5% discount on the fair market value of the stock on the purchase date. Annual participation in the ESPP is limited to the purchase of 1,000 shares of common stock or a dollar value of $25,000 based on its fair market value on the purchase date. All of the eligible portfolio managers are eligible to participate in these plans.

8

(a)(4) Beneficial Ownership of Securities – As of December 31, 2015.

Portfolio Manager	Dollar Range of Equity Securities of the Fund Beneficially Owned
Phillip Soccio, CFA	None
Theodore R. Jaeckel,         Jr., CFA	None
Walter O’Connor	None

(b) Not Applicable

Item 9 – Purchases of Equity Securities by Closed-End Management Investment Company and Affiliated Purchasers – Not Applicable due to no such purchases during the period covered by this report.

Item 10 –  Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders – There have been no material changes to these procedures.

Item 11 –  Controls and Procedures

(a) – The registrant’s principal executive and principal financial officers, or persons performing similar functions, have concluded that the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule 30a-3(c) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”)) are effective as of a date within 90 days of the filing of this report based on the evaluation of these controls and procedures required by Rule 30a-3(b) under the 1940 Act and Rule 13a-15(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(b) – There were no changes in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 30a-3(d) under the 1940 Act) that occurred during the second fiscal quarter of the period covered by this report that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Item 12 –  Exhibits attached hereto

(a)(1) – Code of Ethics – See Item 2

(a)(2) – Certifications – Attached hereto

(a)(3) – Not Applicable

(b) – Certifications – Attached hereto

9

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Company Act of 1940, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

BlackRock New York Municipal 2018 Term Trust

By:	/s/ John M. Perlowski
	John M. Perlowski
	Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer) of
	BlackRock New York Municipal 2018 Term Trust
Date:	March 1, 2016

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Company Act of 1940, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.

By:	/s/ John M. Perlowski
	John M. Perlowski
	Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer) of
	BlackRock New York Municipal 2018 Term Trust
Date:	March 1, 2016
By:	/s/ Neal J. Andrews
	Neal J. Andrews
	Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer) of
	BlackRock New York Municipal 2018 Term Trust
Date:	March 1, 2016

10

EX-99.CERT

EX-99. CERT

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 30a-2(a) UNDER THE 1940 ACT AND SECTION 302 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, John M. Perlowski, Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer) of BlackRock New York Municipal 2018 Term Trust, certify that:

1.            I have reviewed this report on Form N-CSR of BlackRock New York Municipal 2018 Term Trust;

2.            Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.            Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations, changes in net assets, and cash flows (if the financial statements are required to include a statement of cash flows) of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.            The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule 30a-3(c) under the Investment Company Act of 1940) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 30a-3(d) under the Investment Company Act of 1940) for the registrant and have:

a)            designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)            designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

c)            evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this report based on such evaluation; and

d)            disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the second fiscal quarter of the period covered by this report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.            The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)            all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information; and

b)            any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: March 1, 2016

/s/ John M. Perlowski

John M. Perlowski

Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer) of

BlackRock New York Municipal 2018 Term Trust

EX-99. CERT

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 30a-2(a) UNDER THE 1940 ACT AND SECTION 302 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Neal J. Andrews, Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer) of BlackRock New York Municipal 2018 Term Trust, certify that:

1.            I have reviewed this report on Form N-CSR of BlackRock New York Municipal 2018 Term Trust;

2.            Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.            Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations, changes in net assets, and cash flows (if the financial statements are required to include a statement of cash flows) of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.            The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule 30a-3(c) under the Investment Company Act of 1940) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 30a-3(d) under the Investment Company Act of 1940) for the registrant and have:

a)            designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)            designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

c)            evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this report based on such evaluation; and

d)            disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the second fiscal quarter of the period covered by this report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.            The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)            all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information; and

b)            any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: March 1, 2016

/s/ Neal J. Andrews

Neal J. Andrews

Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer) of

BlackRock New York Municipal 2018 Term Trust

EX-99.906CERT

Exhibit 99.906CERT

Certification Pursuant to Rule 30a-2(b) under the 1940 Act and

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of BlackRock New York Municipal 2018 Term Trust (the “Registrant”), hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge, that the Registrant’s Report on Form N-CSR for the period ended December 31, 2015 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

Date: March 1, 2016

/s/ John M. Perlowski

John M. Perlowski

Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer) of

BlackRock New York Municipal 2018 Term Trust

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of BlackRock New York Municipal 2018 Term Trust (the “Registrant”), hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge, that the Registrant’s Report on Form N-CSR for the period ended December 31, 2015 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

Date: March 1, 2016

/s/ Neal J. Andrews

Neal J. Andrews

Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer) of

BlackRock New York Municipal 2018 Term Trust

This certification is being furnished pursuant to Rule 30a-2(b) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Form N-CSR with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

EX-99.PROXY.POL

Closed-End Fund Proxy Voting Policy

September 21, 2015

U.S. Registered Funds

The Boards of Trustees/Directors (“Directors”) of the closed-end funds advised by BlackRock Advisors, LLC (“BlackRock”) (the “Funds”) have the responsibility for the oversight of voting proxies relating to portfolio securities of the Funds, and have determined that it is in the best interests of the Funds and their shareholders to delegate that responsibility to BlackRock as part of BlackRock’s authority to manage, acquire and dispose of account assets, all as contemplated by the Funds’ respective investment management agreements.

BlackRock has adopted guidelines and procedures (together and as from time to time amended, the “BlackRock Proxy Voting Guidelines”) governing proxy voting by accounts managed by BlackRock.

BlackRock will cast votes on behalf of each of the Funds on specific proxy issues in respect of securities held by each such Fund in accordance with the BlackRock Proxy Voting Guidelines; provided that in the case securities held by the Funds of closed-end funds that have or propose to adopt classified boards, BlackRock will typically (a) vote in favor of proposals to adopt classification and against proposals to eliminate classification, and (b) not vote against directors as a result of their adoption of a classified board structure.

BlackRock will report on an annual basis to the Directors on (1) all proxy votes that BlackRock has made on behalf of the Funds in the preceding year together with a certification from the Funds’ Chief Compliance Officer that all votes were in accordance with the BlackRock Proxy Voting Guidelines, and (2) any changes to the BlackRock Proxy Voting Guidelines that have not previously been reported.

Closed-End Fund Proxy Voting Policy
September 21, 2015	Page 1 of 1

EX-99.CORP.GOVN

Contents

Introduction to BlackRock	2
Philosophy on corporate governance	2
Corporate governance, engagement and voting	3
- Boards and directors	4
- Auditors and audit-related issues	5
- Capital structure, mergers, asset sales and other special transactions	6
- Remuneration and benefits	6
- Social, ethical, and environmental issues	7
- General corporate governance matters	7
BlackRock’s oversight of its corporate governance activities	8
- Oversight	8
- Vote execution	8
- Conflicts management	9
- Voting guidelines	10
- Reporting	11

1    2014 Global corporate governance and engagement principles

Introduction to BlackRock

BlackRock is the world’s preeminent asset management firm and a premier provider of global investment management, risk management and advisory services to institutional and individual clients around the world. BlackRock offers a wide range of investment strategies and product structures to meet clients’ needs, including individual and institutional separate accounts, mutual funds, closed-end funds, and other pooled investment vehicles and the industry-leading iShares exchange traded funds. Through BlackRock Solutions®, we offer risk management, strategic advisory and enterprise investment system services to a broad base of clients.

Philosophy on corporate governance

BlackRock’s corporate governance program is focused on protecting and enhancing the economic value of the companies in which it invests on behalf of clients. We do this through engagement with boards and management of investee companies and, for those clients who have given us authority, through voting at shareholder meetings.

We believe that there are certain fundamental rights attached to share ownership. Companies and their boards should be accountable to shareholders and structured with appropriate checks and balances to ensure that they operate in shareholders’ interests. Effective voting rights are central to the rights of ownership and there should be one vote for one share. Shareholders should have the right to elect, remove and nominate directors, approve the appointment of the auditor and to amend the corporate charter or by-laws. Shareholders should be able to vote on matters that are material to the protection of their investment including but not limited to changes to the purpose of the business, dilution levels and pre-emptive rights, the distribution of income and the capital structure. In order to exercise these rights effectively, we believe shareholders have the right to sufficient and timely information to be able to take an informed view of the proposals, and of the performance of the company and management.

Our focus is on the board of directors, as the agent of shareholders, which should set the company’s strategic aims within a framework of prudent and effective controls which enables risk to be assessed and managed. The board should provide direction and leadership to the management and oversee management’s performance. Our starting position is to be supportive of boards in their oversight efforts on our behalf and we would generally expect to support the items of business they put to a vote at shareholder meetings. Votes cast against or withheld from resolutions proposed by the board are a signal that we are concerned that the directors or management have either not acted in the interests of shareholders or have not responded adequately to shareholder concerns regarding strategy or performance.

These principles set out our approach to engaging with companies, provide guidance on our position on corporate governance and outline how our views might be reflected in our voting decisions. Corporate governance practices vary internationally and our expectations in relation to individual companies are based on the legal and regulatory framework of each market. However, as noted above, we do believe that there are some overarching principles of corporate governance that apply globally. We assess voting matters on a case-by-case basis and in light of each company’s unique circumstances. We are interested to understand from the company’s reporting its approach to corporate governance, particularly where it is different from the usual market practice, and how it benefits shareholders.

2    2014 Global corporate governance and engagement principles

BlackRock also believes that shareholders have responsibilities in relation to monitoring and providing feedback to companies, sometimes known as stewardship. These ownership responsibilities include, in our view, engaging with management or board members on corporate governance matters, voting proxies in the best long-term economic interests of shareholders and engaging with regulatory bodies to ensure a sound policy framework consistent with promoting long-term shareholder value creation. Institutional shareholders also have responsibilities to their clients to have appropriate resources and oversight structures. Our own approach to oversight in relation to our corporate governance activities is set out in the section below titled “BlackRock’s oversight of its corporate governance activities”.

Corporate governance, engagement and voting

We recognize that accepted standards of corporate governance differ between markets but we believe that there are sufficient common threads globally to identify an overarching set of principles. The primary objective of our corporate governance activities is the protection and enhancement of the value of our clients’ investments in public corporations. Thus, these principles focus on practices and structures that we consider to be supportive of long-term value creation. We discuss below the principles under six key themes. In our regional and market-specific voting guidelines we explain how these principles inform our voting decisions in relation to specific resolutions that may appear on the agenda of a shareholder meeting in the relevant market.

The six key themes are:

u Boards and directors

u Auditors and audit-related issues

u Capital structure, mergers, asset sales and other special transactions

u Remuneration and benefits

u Social, ethical and environmental issues

u General corporate governance matters

At a minimum we would expect companies to observe the accepted corporate governance standard in their domestic market or to explain why doing so is not in the interests of shareholders. Where company reporting and disclosure is inadequate or the approach taken is inconsistent with our view of what is in the best interests of shareholders, we will engage with the company and/or use our vote to encourage a change in practice. In making voting decisions, we take into account research from proxy advisors, other internal and external research, information published by the company or provided through engagement and the views of our equity portfolio managers.

BlackRock views engagement as an important activity; engagement provides BlackRock with the opportunity to improve our understanding of investee companies and their governance structures, so that our voting decisions may be better informed. Engagement also allows us to share our philosophy and approach to investment and corporate governance with companies to enhance their understanding of our objectives. There are a range of approaches we may take in engaging companies depending on the nature of the issue under consideration, the company and the market.

3    2014 Global corporate governance and engagement principles

Boards and directors

The performance of the board is critical to the economic success of the company and to the protection of shareholders’ interests. Board members serve as agents of shareholders in overseeing the strategic direction and operation of the company. For this reason, BlackRock focuses on directors in many of its engagements and sees the election of directors as one of its most important responsibilities in the proxy voting context.

We expect the board of directors to promote and protect shareholder interests by:

u establishing an appropriate corporate governance structure;

u supporting and overseeing management in setting strategy;

u ensuring the integrity of financial statements;

u making decisions regarding mergers, acquisitions and disposals;

u establishing appropriate executive compensation structures; and

u addressing business issues including social, ethical and environmental issues when they have the potential to materially impact company reputation and performance.

There should be clear definitions of the role of the board, the sub-committees of the board and the senior management such that the responsibilities of each are well understood and accepted. Companies should report publicly the approach taken to governance (including in relation to board structure) and why this approach is in the interest of shareholders. We will engage with the appropriate directors where we have concerns about the performance of the board or the company, the broad strategy of the company or the performance of individual board members. Concerns about directors may include their role on the board of a different company where that board has performed poorly and failed to protect shareholder interests.

BlackRock believes that directors should stand for re-election on a regular basis. We assess directors nominated for election or re-election in the context of the composition of the board as a whole. There should be detailed disclosure of the relevant credentials of the individual directors in order that shareholders can assess the caliber of an individual nominee. We expect there to be a sufficient number of independent directors on the board to ensure the protection of the interests of all shareholders. Common impediments to independence may include but are not limited to:

u current employment at the company or a subsidiary;

u former employment within the past several years as an executive of the company;

u providing substantial professional services to the company and/or members of the company’s management;

u having had a substantial business relationship in the past three years;

u having, or representing a shareholder with, a substantial shareholding in the company;

u being an immediate family member of any of the aforementioned; and

u interlocking directorships.

4    2014 Global corporate governance and engagement principles

BlackRock believes that the operation of the board is enhanced when there is a clearly independent, senior non-executive director to lead it. Where the chairman is also the CEO or is otherwise not independent the company should have an independent lead director. The role of this director is to enhance the effectiveness of the independent members of the board through shaping the agenda, ensuring adequate information is provided to the board and encouraging independent participation in board deliberations. The lead independent board director should be available to shareholders if they have concerns that they wish to discuss.

To ensure that the board remains effective, regular reviews of board performance should be carried out and assessments made of gaps in skills or experience amongst the members. BlackRock believes it is beneficial for new directors to be brought onto the board periodically to refresh the group’s thinking and to ensure both continuity and adequate succession planning. In identifying potential candidates, boards should take into consideration the diversity of experience and expertise of the current directors and how that might be augmented by incoming directors. We believe that directors are in the best position to assess the optimal size for the board, but we would be concerned if a board seemed too small to have an appropriate balance of directors or too large to be effective.

There are matters for which the board has responsibility that may involve a conflict of interest for executives or for affiliated directors. BlackRock believes that shareholders’ interests are best served when the independent members of the board form a sub-committee to deal with such matters. In many markets, these sub-committees of the board specialize in audit, director nominations and compensation matters. An ad hoc committee might also be formed to decide on a special transaction, particularly one with a related party.

Auditors and audit-related issues

BlackRock recognizes the critical importance of financial statements which should provide a complete and accurate picture of a company’s financial condition. We will hold the members of the audit committee or equivalent responsible for overseeing the management of the audit function. We take particular note of cases involving significant financial restatements or ad hoc notifications of material financial weakness.

The integrity of financial statements depends on the auditor being free of any impediments to being an effective check on management. To that end, we believe it is important that auditors are, and are seen to be, independent. Where the audit firm provides services to the company in addition to the audit, the fees earned should be disclosed and explained. Audit committees should also have in place a procedure for assuring annually the independence of the auditor.

5    2014 Global corporate governance and engagement principles

Capital structure, mergers, asset sales and other special transactions

The capital structure of a company is critical to its owners, the shareholders, as it impacts the value of their investment and the priority of their interest in the company relative to that of other equity or debt investors. Pre-emption rights are a key protection for shareholders against the dilution of their interests.

In assessing mergers, asset sales or other special transactions, BlackRock’s primary consideration is the long-term economic interests of shareholders. Boards proposing a transaction need to clearly explain the economic and strategic rationale behind it. We will review a proposed transaction to determine the degree to which it enhances long-term shareholder value. We would prefer that proposed transactions have the unanimous support of the board and have been negotiated at arm’s length. We may seek reassurance from the board that executive and/or board members’ financial interests in a given transaction have not affected their ability to place shareholders’ interests before their own. Where the transaction involves related parties, we would expect the recommendation to support it to come from the independent directors and would prefer only non-conflicted shareholders to vote on the proposal.

BlackRock believes that shareholders have a right to dispose of company shares in the open market without unnecessary restriction. In our view, corporate mechanisms designed to limit shareholders’ ability to sell their shares are contrary to basic property rights. Such mechanisms can serve to protect and entrench interests other than those of the shareholders. We believe that shareholders are broadly capable of making decisions in their own best interests. We would expect any so-called ‘shareholder rights plans’ being proposed by a board to be subject to shareholder approval on introduction and periodically thereafter for continuation.

Remuneration and benefits

BlackRock expects a company’s board of directors to put in place a compensation structure that incentivizes and rewards executives appropriately and is aligned with shareholder interests, particularly long-term shareholder returns. We would expect the compensation committee to take into account the specific circumstances of the company and the key individuals the board is trying to incentivize. We encourage companies to ensure that their compensation packages incorporate appropriate and challenging performance conditions consistent with corporate strategy and market practice. We use third party research, in addition to our own analysis, to evaluate existing and proposed compensation structures. We hold members of the compensation committee or equivalent accountable for poor compensation practices or structures.

BlackRock believes that there should be a clear link between variable pay and company performance as reflected in returns to shareholders. We are not supportive of one-off or special bonuses unrelated to company or individual performance. We support incentive plans that pay out rewards earned over multiple and extended time periods. We believe consideration should be given to building claw back provisions into incentive plans such that executives would be required to repay rewards where they were not justified by actual performance. Compensation committees should guard against contractual arrangements that would entitle executives to material compensation for early termination of their contract. Finally, pension contributions should be reasonable in light of market practice.

6    2014 Global corporate governance and engagement principles

Outside directors should be compensated in a manner that does not risk compromising their independence or aligning their interests too closely with those of the management, whom they are charged with overseeing.

Social, ethical, and environmental issues

Our fiduciary duty to clients is to protect and enhance their economic interest in the companies in which we invest on their behalf. It is within this context that we undertake our corporate governance activities. We believe that well-managed companies will deal effectively with the social, ethical and environmental (“SEE”) aspects of their businesses.

BlackRock expects companies to identify and report on the material, business-specific SEE risks and opportunities and to explain how these are managed. This explanation should make clear how the approach taken by the company best serves the interests of shareholders and protects and enhances the long-term economic value of the company. The key performance indicators in relation to SEE matters should also be disclosed and performance against them discussed, along with any peer group benchmarking and verification processes in place. This helps shareholders assess how well management is dealing with the SEE aspects of the business. Any global standards adopted should also be disclosed and discussed in this context.

We may vote against the election of directors where we have concerns that a company might not be dealing with SEE issues appropriately. Sometimes we may reflect such concerns by supporting a shareholder proposal on the issue, where there seems to be either a significant potential threat or realized harm to shareholders’ interests caused by poor management of SEE matters. In deciding our course of action, we will assess whether the company has already taken sufficient steps to address the concern and whether there is a clear and material economic disadvantage to the company if the issue is not addressed.

More commonly, given that these are often not voting issues, we will engage directly with the board or management. The trigger for engagement on a particular SEE concern is our assessment that there is potential for material economic ramifications for shareholders.

We do not see it as our role to make social, ethical or political judgments on behalf of clients. We expect investee companies to comply, at a minimum, with the laws and regulations of the jurisdictions in which they operate. They should explain how they manage situations where such laws or regulations are contradictory or ambiguous.

General corporate governance matters

BlackRock believes that shareholders have a right to timely and detailed information on the financial performance and viability of the companies in which they invest. In addition, companies should also publish information on the governance structures in place and the rights of shareholders to influence these. The reporting and disclosure provided by companies helps shareholders assess whether the economic interests of shareholders have been protected and the quality of the board’s oversight of management. BlackRock believes shareholders should have the right to vote on key corporate governance matters, including on changes to governance mechanisms, to submit proposals to the shareholders’ meeting and to call special meetings of shareholders.

7    2014 Global corporate governance and engagement principles

BlackRock’s oversight of its corporate governance activities

Oversight

BlackRock holds itself to a very high standard in its corporate governance activities, including in relation to executing proxy votes. This function is executed by a team of dedicated BlackRock employees without sales responsibilities (the “Corporate Governance Group”), and which is considered an investment function. BlackRock maintains three regional oversight committees (“Corporate Governance Committees”) for the Americas, Europe, the Middle East and Africa (EMEA) and Asia-Pacific, consisting of senior BlackRock investment professionals. All of the regional Corporate Governance Committees report to a Global Corporate Governance Oversight Committee, which is a risk-focused committee composed of senior representatives of the active and index equity investment businesses, the Deputy General Counsel, the Global Executive Committee member to whom the Corporate Governance Group reports and the head of the Corporate Governance Group. The Corporate Governance Committees review and approve amendments to their respective proxy voting guidelines (“Guidelines”) and grant authority to the Global Head of Corporate Governance (“Global Head”), a dedicated BlackRock employee without sales responsibilities, to vote in accordance with the Guidelines. The Global Head leads the Corporate Governance Group to carry out engagement, voting and vote operations in a manner consistent with the relevant Corporate Governance Committee’s mandate. The Corporate Governance Group engages companies in conjunction with the portfolio managers in discussions of significant governance issues, conducts research on corporate governance issues and participates in industry discussions to keep abreast of the field of corporate governance. The Corporate Governance Group, or vendors overseen by the Corporate Governance Group, also monitor upcoming proxy votes, execute proxy votes and maintain records of votes cast. The Corporate Governance Group may refer complicated or particularly controversial matters or discussions to the appropriate investors and/or regional Corporate Governance Committees for their review, discussion and guidance prior to making a voting decision.

BlackRock’s Equity Policy Oversight Committee (EPOC) is informed of certain aspects of the work of the Global Corporate Governance Oversight Committee and the Corporate Governance Group.

Vote execution

BlackRock carefully considers proxies submitted to funds and other fiduciary accounts (“Funds”) for which it has voting authority. BlackRock votes (or refrains from voting) proxies for each Fund for which it has voting authority based on BlackRock’s evaluation of the best long-term economic interests of shareholders, in the exercise of its independent business judgment, and without regard to the relationship of the issuer of the proxy (or any dissident shareholder) to the Fund, the Fund’s affiliates (if any), BlackRock or BlackRock’s affiliates.

When exercising voting rights, BlackRock will normally vote on specific proxy issues in accordance with its Guidelines for the relevant market. The Guidelines are reviewed regularly and are amended consistent with changes in the local market practice, as developments in corporate governance occur, or as otherwise deemed advisable by BlackRock’s Corporate Governance Committees. The Corporate Governance Committees may, in the exercise of their business judgment, conclude that the Guidelines do not cover the specific matter upon which a proxy vote is requested or that an exception to the Guidelines would be in the best long-term economic interests of BlackRock’s clients.

8    2014 Global corporate governance and engagement principles

In the uncommon circumstance of there being a vote with respect to fixed income securities or the securities of privately held issuers the decision generally will be made by a Fund’s portfolio managers and/or the Corporate Governance Group based on their assessment of the particular transactions or other matters at issue.

In certain markets, proxy voting involves logistical issues which can affect BlackRock’s ability to vote such proxies, as well as the desirability of voting such proxies. These issues include but are not limited to: (i) untimely notice of shareholder meetings; (ii) restrictions on a foreigner’s ability to exercise votes; (iii) requirements to vote proxies in person; (iv) “share- blocking” (requirements that investors who exercise their voting rights surrender the right to dispose of their holdings for some specified period in proximity to the shareholder meeting); (v) potential difficulties in translating the proxy; and (vi) requirements to provide local agents with unrestricted powers of attorney to facilitate voting instructions. We are not supportive of impediments to the exercise of voting rights such as shareblocking or overly burdensome administrative requirements.

As a consequence, BlackRock votes proxies in these markets only on a “best-efforts” basis. In addition, the Corporate Governance Committees may determine that it is generally in the best interests of BlackRock clients not to vote proxies of companies in certain countries if the committee determines that the costs (including but not limited to opportunity costs associated with shareblocking constraints) associated with exercising a vote are expected to outweigh the benefit the client would derive by voting on the issuer’s proposal.

While it is expected that BlackRock, as a fiduciary, will generally seek to vote proxies over which BlackRock exercises voting authority in a uniform manner for all BlackRock clients, the relevant Corporate Governance Committee, in conjunction with the portfolio manager of an account, may determine that the specific circumstances of such an account require that such account’s proxies be voted differently due to such account’s investment objective or other factors that differentiate it from other accounts. In addition, BlackRock believes portfolio managers may from time to time legitimately reach differing but equally valid views, as fiduciaries for their funds and the client assets in those Funds, on how best to maximize economic value in respect of a particular investment. Accordingly, portfolio managers retain full discretion to vote the shares in the Funds they manage based on their analysis of the economic impact of a particular ballot item.

Conflicts management

BlackRock maintains policies and procedures that are designed to prevent undue influence on BlackRock’s proxy voting activity that might stem from any relationship between the issuer of a proxy (or any dissident shareholder) and BlackRock, BlackRock’s affiliates, a Fund or a Fund’s affiliates. Some of the steps BlackRock has taken to prevent conflicts include, but are not limited to:

u BlackRock has adopted a proxy voting oversight structure whereby the Corporate Governance Committees oversee the voting decisions and other activities of the Corporate Governance Group, and particularly its activities with respect to voting in the relevant region of each Corporate Governance Committee’s jurisdiction.

u The Corporate Governance Committees have adopted Guidelines for each region, which set forth the firm’s views with respect to certain corporate governance and other issues that typically arise in the proxy voting context. The Corporate Governance Committees receive periodic reports regarding the specific votes cast by the Corporate Governance Group and regular updates on material process issues, procedural changes and other matters of concern to the Corporate Governance Committees.

9    2014 Global corporate governance and engagement principles

u BlackRock’s Global Corporate Governance Oversight Committee oversees the Global Head, the Corporate Governance Group and the Corporate Governance Committees. The Global Corporate Governance Oversight Committee conducts a review, at least annually, of the proxy voting process to ensure compliance with BlackRock’s risk policies and procedures.

u BlackRock maintains a reporting structure that separates the Global Head and Corporate Governance Group from employees with sales responsibilities. In addition, BlackRock maintains procedures intended to ensure that all engagements with corporate issuers or dissident shareholders are managed consistently and without regard to BlackRock’s relationship with the issuer of the proxy or dissident shareholder. Within the normal course of business, the Global Head or Corporate Governance Group may engage directly with BlackRock clients, and with employees with sales responsibilities, in discussions regarding general corporate governance policy matters, and to otherwise ensure that proxy-related client service levels are met. The Global Head or Corporate Governance Group does not discuss any specific voting matter with a client prior to the disclosure of the vote decision to all applicable clients after the shareholder meeting has taken place, except if the client is acting in the capacity as issuer of the proxy or dissident shareholder and is engaging through the established procedures independent of the client relationship.

u In certain instances, BlackRock may determine to engage an independent fiduciary to vote proxies as a further safeguard to avoid potential conflicts of interest or as otherwise required by applicable law. The independent fiduciary may either vote such proxies or provide BlackRock with instructions as to how to vote such proxies. In the latter case, BlackRock votes the proxy in accordance with the independent fiduciary’s determination. Use of an independent fiduciary has been adopted for voting the proxies related to any company that is affiliated with BlackRock or any company that includes BlackRock employees on its board of directors.

With regard to the relationship between securities lending and proxy voting, BlackRock’s approach is driven by our clients’ economic interests. The evaluation of the economic desirability of recalling loans involves balancing the revenue producing value of loans against the likely economic value of casting votes. Based on our evaluation of this relationship, we believe that generally the likely economic value of casting most votes is less than the securities lending income, either because the votes will not have significant economic consequences or because the outcome of the vote would not be affected by BlackRock recalling loaned securities in order to ensure they are voted. Periodically, BlackRock analyzes the process and benefits of voting proxies for securities on loan, and will consider whether any modification of its proxy voting policies or procedures is necessary in light of future conditions. In addition, BlackRock may in its discretion determine that the value of voting outweighs the cost of recalling shares, and thus recall shares to vote in that instance.

Voting guidelines

The issue-specific voting Guidelines published for each region/country in which we vote are intended to summarize BlackRock’s general philosophy and approach to issues that may commonly arise in the proxy voting context in each market where we invest. These Guidelines are not intended to be exhaustive. BlackRock applies the Guidelines on a case-by-case basis, in the context of the individual circumstances of each company and the specific issue under review.

10    2014 Global corporate governance and engagement principles

As such, these Guidelines do not provide a guide to how BlackRock will vote in every instance. Rather, they share our view about corporate governance issues generally, and provide insight into how we typically approach issues that commonly arise on corporate ballots.

Reporting

We report our proxy voting activity directly to clients and publically as required. In addition, we publish for clients a more detailed discussion of our corporate governance activities, including engagement with companies and with other relevant parties.

11    2014 Global corporate governance and engagement principles