Source: https://rightsradio.com/pets-in-condos-legal-victory-re-emotional-support-animal-for-disabled-child/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 06:27:53+00:00

Document:
Complainants alleged that the Respondent unlawfully denied their request to permit their minor child to have a medically prescribed emotional support animal. They won…at considerable cost.
complaint with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) on behalf of themselves and their minor child, Aaron Schein. Complainants allege that Respondent refused to grant them a reasonable accommodation in violation of the Fair Housing Act, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq. (“Act”). In particular, Complainants allege that Respondent unlawfully denied their request to permit their minor child to have a medicallyprescribed emotional support animal as a reasonable accommodation. 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(0(2), (0(3)(B).
(“Charge”) on behalf of aggrieved persons following an investigation and determination that reasonable cause exists to believe that a discriminatory housing practice has occurred. 42 U.S.C. § 3610(g)(1)-(2). The Secretary has delegated to the General Counsel (54 Fed. Reg. 13121), who has re-delegated to the Regional Counsel (67 Fed. Reg. 44234), the authority to issue such a Charge, following a determination of reasonable cause.
New York/New Jersey Region, on behalf of the Assistant Secretary for FHEO, has authorized this Charge because he has determined after investigation that reasonable cause exists to believe that a discriminatory housing practice has occurred. HUD’s efforts to conciliate the complaint were unsuccessful. See 42 U.S.C. § 3610(b).
of the sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with such dwelling, because of a disability of that person or a person residing in that dwelling after it is sold, rented or made available. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(0(2). Discrimination includes a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford a person with a disability equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B).
cooperative development. Townsend House is a 20-story apartment building with 97 cooperative apartments and is located at 176 East 71st Street, New York, New York 10021.
on a temporary basis. This policy is contained within Respondent’s —House Rules,” which constitute part of the shareholders’ Proprietary Lease Agreement.
reasonable accommodation for their son. Specifically, Complainants requested an exception to the no-pet policy to permit the Child to have a dog as a medicallyprescribed emotional support animal.
accompanied by psychological reports to confirm the Child’s diagnoses and literature outlining the benefits of such a dog.
two letters from the Child’s medical providers addressing his disability and recommending a dog as an emotional support animal.
that Respondent asked to have an independent professional retained to confirm the Child’s medical condition, provided Complainants consented and agreed to cover the expense. Complainants objected to having their son subjected to additional evaluation. They suggested to Mr. Berkey that the independent physician speak to the Child’s doctors to obtain any information necessary to make his/her evaluation.
considering retaining Dr. Nancy Crown, Ph.D. to evaluate the Child’s medical condition.
disability under the ADA and agreed with the previous psychologist’s assessment of the Child’s developmental disability and reasonable recommendation for a dog.
granted the request, but it was conditioned on Complainants’ agreement to comply with the terms contained in a Pet License Agreement.
16. On May 23, 2008, Mr. Berkey provided Complainants with a revised Pet License Agreement.
2. …. The term of this Agreement shall be for so long as [the Child] resides in the Apartment and a therapy animal is helpful for treatment of his disability. Should [the child] leave the apartment for an extended period of time (e.g., to attend preparatory school or college) the dog may not continue to be kept in the Apartment.
(n) LICENSEES shall provide LICENSOR with proof of the existence of a Homeowner’s Insurance policy providing liability coverage in the face amount of not less than $1,000,000.00 for bodily injury and property damage or in such other amounts as may be established by the board in its reasonable discretion from time to time.
(vi) LICENSOR, in its reasonable discretion, shall have the right to determine that the dog licensed by it shall be muzzled at such time as the dog is present in a building service elevator, public hallway, stairwell, lobby or other such areas of the property of LICENSOR as may be designated.
provided alternate language for Respondent’s consideration.
discuss the terms of the Pet License Agreement, including Complainants’ objections.
language, Respondent informed Complainants that it was only willing to adjust the weight limit to that of a fully grown dog up to 25 pounds. Respondent refused to modify or remove any other restriction.
their reasonable request has prevented treatment for the Child. More specifically, the continued delay caused Complainants to lose opportunities to select an appropriate dog for the Child. It also caused Complainants to lose the opportunity for the Child and dog to attend a training program that was available during the Summer of 2007 and 2008, which would have allowed Complainants to avoid any interference with the Child’s regular school year.
review the request for a reasonable accommodation, as well as for the cost associated with Dr. Crown’s evaluation of the Child.
see also 24 C.F.R. § 100.204(a).
6. Awards such additional relief as may be appropriate under 42 U.S.C. §3612(g) (3).

References: § 3610
 § 3610
 § 3604
 § 3604
 § 100
 §3612