In a recent legal battle between a shareholder and tenant in a cooperative apartment in Manhattan’s Lower East Side, the individual emerged victorious against the building’s landlord committee, securing a compensation of $165,000. The defendant, The Rutherford, is a residential cooperative building with 175 units located at 230 East 15th Street, according to information from the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office.
The plaintiff, who moved into the building in 1999, kept a parrot in her home as an emotional support animal to help her cope with certain mental health issues. Up until March 2015, there had been no issues with neighbors. However, a neighbor began complaining about noise allegedly caused by the parrot.
In response, the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) conducted 15 visits to the building and/or the plaintiff’s apartment within a year to investigate these noise complaints. The DEP did not issue any noise violation notices as a result. The building did not conduct any decibel testing for an objective assessment and did not consult noise prevention consultants, architects, engineers, or any individuals with expertise in soundproofing to address the neighbor’s complaints.
In March 2016, the tenant requested permission from the building to continue keeping the parrot, supported by a letter from her mental health care provider.
The Fair Housing Act (FHA) prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental of housing based on a buyer or renter’s disability status or the refusal to provide housing in any other manner. It also requires reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, and services to provide equal housing opportunities for individuals with disabilities when necessary.
The allowances for assistance animals in private residences as per the FHA are different from those in the Americans with Disabilities Act, which only permit dogs and miniature horses in public settings. FHA permits individuals with disabilities to keep various animals as assistance animals at home as long as these animals do not pose a direct threat to others’ health or safety and do not cause physical damage to property.
Despite knowing that this tenant was disabled and needed the parrot as an assistance animal, the cooperative building’s committee initiated eviction proceedings against the disabled tenant in May 2016.
In May 2018, the disabled tenant filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), alleging that the eviction process violated her fair housing rights.
During HUD’s investigation of the complaint, the plaintiff could have sold the apartment for $467,500 (or sold her share), but The Rutherford refused the buyer’s application, prolonging the dispute. The building’s committee was accused by the government of retaliating against the plaintiff for asserting her rights.
In January 2021, HUD completed its investigation, finding that the building violated the Fair Housing Act. At this point, there was an opportunity for both parties to resolve the issue, but the building’s committee chose to file a lawsuit in federal court, triggering the Department of Justice to sue them to address the matter.
Ultimately, the building’s committee agreed to pay $165,000 in compensation to the victim of housing discrimination and offered to purchase her cooperative apartment shares for $585,000.
On August 16th, Federal Prosecutor Damian Williams announced that an agreement had been signed between the Rutherford building committee and his office in the Southern District of New York.
“This is a significant compensation achieved for individuals with disabilities by the Department of Justice because the building deprived them of their right to have assistance animals,” said Williams in a statement. “This outcome should prompt all housing providers to carefully consider whether their policies and procedures comply with federal law.”
Background Information: According to data from the New York City government, there are over 7,000 cooperative apartment buildings in New York City, accounting for around 75% of the city’s residential housing. Cooperative apartments refer to buildings where the units are owned by the building, and residents are both tenants and shareholders, with the building managed by a committee consisting of residents within the building.