Vicki and Arthur Nathanson filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights (SDHR) after their co-op board filed eviction proceedings against them.
The Nathansons, who both reportedly suffered from kidney problems and depression, adopted a dog in violation of the building's "no pets" policy and argued they should be allowed to keep the animal as an "accommodation" for their disabilities. (To that end, the tenants presented evidence that the canine's presence helped improve their depression-related symptoms.)
After an SDHR Administrative Law Judge sided with the Nathansons, the co-op appealed to the Appellate Division, Second Department, which wasn't very receptive to the Nathansons' position and annulled the agency's determination.
Although the evidence showed the dog provided some discernible benefit, absent a demonstration the animal was "actually necessary in order for them to enjoy the apartment," their claim couldn't survive muster.
Was that a bitch?
To view a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: In the Matter of Kennedy St. Quad, Ltd. v. Nathanson