New Trial Needed on Tenant's Emotional Support Dog Discrimination Claim

LVT Number: #31781

Tenant moved into landlord's building in 2011. At that time, he had been diagnosed with a major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder. In 2013, tenant requested an accommodation from landlord so that he could get an emotional support dog despite the building's no-pet policy. Tenant submitted a letter from his psychologist to support his request.

Tenant moved into landlord's building in 2011. At that time, he had been diagnosed with a major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder. In 2013, tenant requested an accommodation from landlord so that he could get an emotional support dog despite the building's no-pet policy. Tenant submitted a letter from his psychologist to support his request.

The landlord said no, and tenant then complained to the State Attorney General, who began an investigation on whether landlord's denial was discriminatory. While the investigation was pending, landlord sued tenant, seeking a ruling that its denial didn't violate the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) or the New York Human Rights Law (HRL). Tenant counterclaimed for discrimination and for retaliation based on landlord's shortening of tenant's renewal lease term.

The trial court held that, although tenant's request clearly appeared to be reasonable, tenant didn't prove that having an emotional support dog was a necessary accommodation and failed to prove retaliation. The court ruled for landlord and dismissed tenant's counterclaim.

Tenant appealed and won in part. The appeals court dismissed landlord's declaratory judgment action, finding it to be premature, given the lack of any harm resulting from tenant merely asking for an exception to the no-pet policy. The appeals court also found that tenant was disabled and that an emotional support dog was necessary to give him an equal opportunity to use and enjoy his apartment within the meaning of the FHA and the HRL. The case was sent back to the lower court for further proceedings. The lower court found that there were additional questions that required a hearing before making a determination on tenant's request.

Landlord appealed and lost. The lower court did nothing to violate prior orders in this case, and properly scheduled a hearing for additional testimony and determination of damages on the retaliation claim.

Hollandale Apts. & Health Club, LLC v. Bonesteel: Index No. 531558, 2021 NY Slip Op 06726 (App. Div. 3 Dept.; 12/2/21; Garry, PJ, Egan Jr., Aarons, Pritzker, Colangelo, JJ)