THERAPY DOG FEDERAL CASE

"The co-op disagrees with the content of the Daily News story and the findings of the Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, as well as the allegations of the Biegels' complaint," the board's attorney, Marc H. Schneider, the managing partner of Schneider Mitola, told Habitat.

HUD in Plain Sight

What did HUD find, in a nearly three-year investigation that ended Sept. 16? The facts in the case begin on November 23, 2005, when the Biegels moved into their co-op in the gated seniors community Woodbury Gardens in Long Island's Nassau County. The 214-apartment complex opened in 2001, built by E. O. Associates of Garden City, N.Y.. under the Town of Oyster Bay's ''golden age'' zoning code, designed to encourage construction of housing for people 62 and older. (Woodbury is a hamlet within Oyster Bay.)

By the time the Biegels had moved in, the co-op had House Rule No. 10, which stated, "No bird or animals shall be kept harbored in the building unless the same in each instance have been expressly permitted" — a phrasing that gives the board power to expressly permit service animals even if disability law did not already require reasonable accommodation for such.

Nearly a year later, on August 7, 2006, after Sandra Biegel began suffering from the pulmonary hypertension and other issues, she began keeping Mikey, originally her daughter Rebecca's pet, as a therapy dog which, in the words of HUD, "provided emotional support…, reducing her depression and anxiety and helping her better cope with her physical ailments."

On Sept. 20, 2006, however, the Woodbury Gardens board demanded the Biegels remove the dog by Oct. 15 or face monthly fines and possible eviction. This is in contrast to boards that pursue a gradual process beginning with mediation.

Homebound? Who Cares?

The board did, however, agree to an extension requested by the Biegels' son, Brian, a filmmaker, who had advised the board that his mother was "an invalid" with several physical and mental disorders. At a special meeting that the board convened on Oct. 16, Jack Biegel explained that his wife was ill and that the dog "helps keep her healthy." Brian told the board that Mikey was "therapeutic" to his ill mother because she suffered from chronic and severe depression, and presented an Oct. 5 letter from clinical social worker Consuelo Alsapiedi that concurred the dog helped alleviate Mrs. Biegel's depression. The family pleaded for the exemption to the no-pet policy, as provided for in the house rule.

The board responded with a Nov. 1 letter insisting Mrs. Biegel submit to a medial examination by a doctor of the board's choosing and also to submit her medical records. Because Mrs. Biegel was so frail at this point that she could not leave her home without an ambulance, according to HUD's investigation, the family instead provided letters from not one but three doctors.

The first doctor wrote, in a Nov. 7 letter, "…it is my professional opinion that her pulmonary hypertension can he worsened by the removal of her companion [animal]. Not having her per present in her home could cause her labored breathing to worsen." The second letter, from her pulmonary specialist and dated Nov. 9, advised that the dog was a medical necessity to fight her depression. The third, dated Nov. 20, was from a doctor who stated that "the patient suffers from a chronic medical condition and a high anxiety level. Her pet helps relieve her anxiety and helps with her overall emotional well-being."

Next page: Out of the HUDdle >>