Feds say comfort dogs must be permitted

There's a huge difference between a ruling and filing a lawsuit.

Let's just wait and see on this one.

I'm not an atty, but the phrases brokers are taught in our Fair Housing classes are "reasonable accomodation" to the tenant that does not pose an "undue burden" on the building.

So while I see in this news story that the tenant's side is arguing that the dog was a "reasonable accomodation," I bet what the co-op will have to say is that its residency posed an "undue burden." Mini Schnauzers are certainly somewhat barky, and the building may well win on those grounds.

Whatever the result, I don't think we'll see a wholesale overturning of no-pet policies.

ali r.
DG Neary Realty

Ali, agreed.

If you really needed a pet to keep you alive, you shouldn't be living in a building that doesn't permit pets.

Duh.

NYCMatt - Rocks and hard places. If a tenant already owns, or better yet, is a pre-co-op rent stabilized tenant, then it will be real hard to argue they had a free choice to not live there. That argument will just not be allowed to stand and the interests against it include some very powerful constituencies.

You had best find a new argument.

(I am against rent-stabilization, but I won't ever deny the the pro-RS political power in this city.)

These people bought with a no pets rule and brought in the dog after they bought, so there's no question about changing the rules on them (as if that matters).

If this was just about people suing, I wouldn't have found it potentially troubling (hey, we're Americans and we sue). The troubling aspect is that a federal prosecutor thinks this is worth pursuing.

"The troubling aspect is that a federal prosecutor thinks this is worth pursuing. "

By buying in NYC you knew you were buying into a city with a legal system prone to patronizing behavior towards its citizens. So there is no question about complaining that Federal prosecutors want to influence your life. After all, your agreement was with other co-op members, not federal or city law. (See how i did that?)

they already can by-pass if its a seeing-eye dog. would be interesting if this is extended to comfort-dogs... Somehow I doubt it. It opens up a huge can of worms.

comfort dogs say Feds must be outwitted.

Apparently I'm the only person reading this who believes in the comforting power of dogs. Oh well.

We don't know the facts of this case so it's impossible to comment very deeply. I will say that I have certainly trained enough dogs not to bark to assure you this dog could have been so trained, regardless of breed.

However, for those who are not aware of this, there are dog trainers and legitimate certifications/registrations available for dogs of any breed that perform a variety of patient care and assistance tasks, including helping to stabilize people with severe psychological problems. For example, a dog can be trained to stop relentless self hair pulling, which can result in a bloody scalp if not stopped.

Service dogs are protected by the same laws that protect dogs who guide blind people. The ABA article says the shareholder had "disabilities," they are unspecified, perhaps they were psychiatric in nature and embarrassing to the family to describe in detail.

It's possible this dog was not brought in as a "pet" at all, but that the rabid (pun intended) co-op board wouldn't listen to medical input or documents regarding this shareholder.

We don't know based on what little we have here.

If you had bothered to click through to the Daily News story:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/feds-sue-i-co-op-threatening-evict-couple-woman-comfort-dog-article-1.1022404

you'd see that none of your suppositions is true. In any event, the building's rule wasn't "no pets unless you come up with some kind of excuse why this one is special."

saw a woman with a comfort dog in a store the other day. woman was screaming at clerk, comfort dog looked scared. comfort dog needed a comfort dog.

pets are fun and companionship can be theraputic.
The building didn't allow pets.
The government is overreaching once again.

>I'm not an atty, but the phrases brokers are taught in our Fair Housing classes are "reasonable accomodation" to the tenant that does not pose an "undue burden" on the building.
So while I see in this news story that the tenant's side is arguing that the dog was a "reasonable accomodation," I bet what the co-op will have to say is that its residency posed an "undue burden." Mini Schnauzers are certainly somewhat barky, and the building may well win on those grounds.

First someone will have to prove that there was a disability before proving that the disability required an accommodation. She moved in in 2005 to the building with the no-pets policy. In 2006 she got the dog.

If her husband or the estate wins, another strike against older NYers when trying to pass a co-op board.

Dogs are great! On polar Expeditions you bring a ton of them. You feed the weakest one to the surviving dogs.

Much less baggage on the return flight.

ah, I adore dwell.

kharby: I do believe in the comforting power of dogs.
I really do.

But that's how it gets started...
somebody left the gate o-o--o-pen...

Muddy Helm says:

"I've been comforting Levon for years.
He loves and needs me.
That's why we live in Woodstock.
I need some comfort too."

"Ramble at the Ryman" Grammy Award winner for Americana.
www.LevonHelm.com

yes, those dogs are permitted in the unit ONLY, but not anywhere in public areas of the no-pet buildings. If they are seen in hallways etc, building management has right to eliminate them immediately.

how could we eliminate you immediately?

oh, this should be interesting, columbiacounty vs. caonima

I just googled "columbiacounty caonima"... interesting:

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=columbiacounty+caonima&pbx=1&oq=columbiacounty+caonima

one of the results:
http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/29342-prepare-for-the-upcoming-race-war

Where does it end?
Your shrink writes a letter saying that being surrounded by a trio of cheap hookers gives you comfort and relaxes your nerves better than an medication. The trick is to get Medicare to cover the therapy. I can see it it now.....Sorry honey, I'm not getting down on my knees for these type of reimbursables. I'd say," F the Fed, but it doesn't pay".

Exactly falcogold1.

Thanks Truth!
I felt so sorry for that poor little comfort dog, in his little "I'm a comfort dog" jacket, his big sad eyes looking at me. If rude, aggressive people get these dogs, it must be torture for the dogs. Some people use pets, esply dogs, as emotional wastebaskets & the pets absorb their owner's angst.

"Comfort dogs". What a world we live in.

dwell: Rex the Wonder Dog was the best comfort dog in the world ;)

my comfort dog is half pitbull, half collie.
First he rips your face off, then he goes for help.*

*Joan Riveres

Thank you for the new link, Eric.

Sounds like co-ops should be extremely careful about how they handle these situations. Just imagine how this would play out before a jury! Not well for the corporation, I would predict.

Unless the jury is all co-op board members.

>Just imagine how this would play out before a jury!

She moved in to the no-dogs building in 2005, and then in 2006 she needed a dog. The facts don't support the sympathetic point of view. If she had lived there for 20 years, if her husband had passed the year before, ... different story.