BILL NUMBER: S6172

SPONSOR: MARTINEZ
 
TITLE OF BILL:  An act to amend the executive law, in relation to
clarifying that reasonable accommodation to enable a person with a disa-
bility to use and enjoy a dwelling includes the use of an animal to
alleviate the symptoms or effects of a disability

 
PURPOSE OF THE BILL:

The purpose of the bill is to amend the Executive Law §§ 296.2-a(d)(2)
and 296.18(2) (hereafter "Human Right Law") to clarify that reasonable
accommodation to enable a person with a disability to use and enjoy a
dwelling includes the use of an animal to alleviate the symptoms or
effects of a disability.

 
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:

Subparagraph (2) of paragraph (d) of subdivisions 2-a of section 296 of
the Human Rights Law, which covers publically assisted housing, would be
amended to clarify that a reasonable accommodation to enable a person
              

with a disability to use and enjoy a dwelling includes the use of an
animal to alleviate the symptoms or effects of a disability.

Paragraph (2) of subdivision 18 of section 296 of the Human Rights Law,
which covers private housing, would be amended to clarify that a reason-
able accommodation to enable a person with a disability to use and enjoy
a dwelling includes the use of an animal to alleviate the symptoms or
effects of a disability.

 
JUSTIFICATION:

The Human Rights Law provides that it is unlawful to refuse to make
reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services,
when such accommodations may be necessary to afford a person with a
disability equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. Human Rights
Law §§ 296.2-a(d)(2) and 296.18(2).

The Division of Human Rights has found in appropriate circumstances that
permitting a person with a disability to maintain an animal as a reason-
able accommodation is necessary for the person with a disability to use
and enjoy a dwelling. It is reasonable to permit such an accommodation
to a housing provider's "no pets" policy, where medical evidence or
other professional evidence shows that the animal aids the person with
the disability by alleviating the symptoms or effects of a disability.

However, in Kennedy Street Quad, Ltd. v. Nathanson, 62 AD3d 879, 880 (rd
Dept 2009), lv. to appeal denied, 13 N.Y.3d 714 (2009), the Appellate
Division annulled a determination of the Commissioner of Human Rights
which had found that a cooperative housing corporation had discriminated
against two shareholders, each of whom had disabilities, by seeking to
evict them from their home of thirty years because they maintained a dog
on the premises that aided them with their disabilities. The Appellate
Division ruled that despite evidence from physicians and a psychologist
demonstrating that the dog ameliorated symptoms of their disabilities
and was helpful to the individuals with regard to their symptoms, there
was still not sufficient evidence that the animal was required in order
to use and enjoy the home. See, similarly, Matter of 105 Northgate Coop.
v Donaldson, 54 AD3d 414, 416 (2m Dept 2008); Matter of One Overlook
Ave. Corp. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 8 AD3d 286, 287 (2nd
Dept 2004). These holdings have had a negative impact on the ability of
persons with disabilities to receive a reasonable accommodation relative
to a housing provider's policies, as required by Human Rights Law §§
296.2-a(d)(2) and 296.18(2), and unnecessarily limits these provisions
of the Human Rights Law.

This bill would clarify that a person with a disability may demonstrate
that a reasonable accommodation is necessary for the use and enjoyment
of the premises if appropriate medical and other professional evidence
shows that the animal "alleviate 
S the symptoms or effects of a disa-
bility."

 
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

This bill was introduced in the 2017-2018 session as A.7283 (Depart-
mental Bill   44; DER   0117). It passed the Assembly and never came to
a vote in the Senate. It was also introduced in the 20152016 session as
Assembly Bill Number 9760 (Departmental Bill  102, DHR  01-16). It
passed the Assembly and never came to a vote in the Senate.

 
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

None.

 
EFFECTIVE DATE:
Immediate.