If you are a landlord or co-op board member in New York City, you may wonder if your “no-pets” policy must be waived for an emotional support animal (ESA). The short answer is yes, you will likely have to waive the policy. This is true even if the request is from a current resident.
This situation can be confusing. You want to enforce your building’s rules but also need to avoid a costly discrimination complaint. This is a common challenge where building policies intersect with complex housing laws.
The law vs. your building’s policy
Federal, state and local anti-discrimination laws treat a valid emotional support animal not as a pet, but as a medical necessity (or, in NYC, medically beneficial, a much lower standard). This is similar to a guide dog. The primary laws at play are the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA), the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL).
All three statutes require housing providers to provide “reasonable accommodations” in rules or policies. This is necessary to allow a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy their home. The NYCHRL is highly protective of tenants. Because of these laws, your “no-pets” policy cannot be used to automatically deny a legitimate request.
What is a “reasonable accommodation”?
Housing providers can verify that a request is legitimate. A resident generally must provide documentation from a healthcare or mental health professional that confirms two things:
- The resident has a disability, as defined by the law
- The animal provides support that alleviates one or more symptoms or effects of that disability and allows the individual to enjoy the benefit of their apartment.
You must establish a “nexus” between the disability and the animal’s role. You cannot ask for a specific diagnosis, only confirmation that a disability exists and the animal serves the stated function.
Are there any exceptions?
While legal protections for residents are strong, approval is not automatic. A housing provider may be able to deny a request if it falls into a few narrow exceptions. These include situations where he request:
- Imposes an undue financial or administrative burden on the provider (very difficult to prove in an ESA situation);
- Cause a fundamental alteration to the nature of the housing;
- Pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others (based on the specific animal’s conduct, not its breed)
- Result in significant property damage
A denial must be based on the individual animal’s conduct, not its breed or size. Simply having a “no-pets” policy is not a valid defense against a legitimate reasonable accommodation request. It should be noted that just because an animal qualifies as an ESA, it is not exempt from the nuisance requirements of the building; for example, it cannot constantly bark or bite its neighbors.
Evaluating the resident’s documentation
After receiving a request, you must evaluate the provided documentation. You can ask for verification from a medical professional but not specific medical records.
Distinguishing valid requests from illegitimate online “certificates” is a major challenge. Merely registering the dog as an ESA online is not sufficient to prove that you are entitled to keep it as an ESA. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) offers guidance on assessing these requests. If unsure about a request’s legitimacy, consider seeking legal guidance.