Refused to consider a disabled shareholder's request to keep an assistance dog and fined her $740 — $300 for the dog and $440 for the board's own legal fees — then, after she complained to the State, revoked her disabled parking space, refused her maintenance cheques, moved to evict her, and told her falsely that the agency had ruled in the board's favour.

Partly sustained, partly rejected.

Matter of Delkap Mgt., Inc. v. New York State Div. of Human Rights · 144 AD3d 1148 (2d Dept 2016) · App Div 2d Dept · Index 144 AD3d 1148

Outcome

Agency determination

Filed

Last decision

2016-11-30

Elapsed

yrs

Brought by

unit owner

Posture

agency determination

What the court held

To establish a Human Rights Law violation for refusal of a reasonable accommodation, a complainant must show she is disabled, is otherwise qualified for the tenancy, that because of the disability it is NECESSARY for her to keep the animal in order to use and enjoy the apartment, and that a reasonable accommodation could be made (Executive Law s 296[2][a]). Evidence that the animal eased stress and increased activity, without medical or psychological evidence of necessity — and where the complainant had lived in the apartment more than twenty years without an animal and was diagnosed years before it arrived — does not amount to substantial evidence of discrimination. But RETALIATION is separately established where the complainant engaged in protected activity, the respondents knew of it, adverse action followed, and causation is shown; here revoking a disabled parking space, refusing maintenance checks, commencing eviction proceedings, falsely stating that the agency had ruled for the respondents, and ordering the animal removed constituted adverse action for which the respondents offered no legitimate, independent, nondiscriminatory reason.

“Notwithstanding, the SDHR's determination that the petitioners retaliated against the complainant for engaging in protected behavior was supported by substantial evidence”
144 AD3d at 1151

Outcome in full

A finding against the cooperative and its managing agent, entered by an agency and CONFIRMED in part on judicial review. The Second Department annulled the discrimination finding and the money awards attached to it, but confirmed the retaliation finding and remitted for reduced awards: compensatory damages not to exceed $2,500 (from $5,000), punitive damages not to exceed $2,500 (from $10,000), and a civil penalty payable to the State not to exceed $2,000 on each respondent (from $5,000 each). The directives to create and implement standard procedures for evaluating shareholders' accommodation requests and to develop and implement anti-discrimination training were CONFIRMED without reduction. The proceeding was otherwise dismissed on the merits.

The harm continued while the case ran

The shareholder was confined to her apartment for nine days when her disabled parking space was revoked, defended a holdover eviction proceeding, was hospitalised in March 2011 with palpitations and nausea attributed to the stress, and ultimately moved out of the apartment she had occupied since 1988. All of it happened while the case ran.

What it cost

Not disclosed. No decision in this case states a figure, and we publish no estimate. Why costs are mostly blank.

What would have prevented this

THIS IS THE COMPARISON THE WHOLE LEDGER IS BUILT TO MAKE, and it is internal to New York rather than borrowed from Florida. The shareholder did not retain counsel to start this. She filed a complaint with a state agency, which investigated, held a hearing before an administrative law judge, made findings, awarded damages, imposed a civil penalty, and ordered the cooperative to write accommodation procedures and train its people. That machinery exists because the conduct was DISCRIMINATION. Had the identical board done the identical things over a records demand, an assessment, an election or a repair, there would have been no agency, no hearing, no penalty and no prospective relief — only a courthouse and a retainer. New York has already proved it can build this channel. It has declined to build it for anything else a board does.

Sources

Read in full and verified 2026-08-04.

← Back to Discrimination and Denial of Reasonable Accommodation