Legal Challenges in Enforcing Pet Policies for Co-op and Condo Boards

Enforcing no-pet policies can be tricky for co-op and condo boards …

ACT PROMPTLY AND NOTE EXEMPTIONS

Few issues create more legal complications than pet policies. While many buildings maintain “no pet” rules, New York state law presents a significant challenge to enforcement through what’s known as the 90-day rule.

THE 90-DAY CHALLENGE. When a resident brings a pet into a building with a no-pet policy, boards face an immediate ticking clock. If it fails to take court action within 90 days of discovering the pet’s presence, the board effectively waives its right to object to that animal’s presence for its lifetime. This deadline creates particular pressure on boards, as they must not only identify the violation but also serve appropriate notices and file court proceedings within this narrow window.

The challenge begins with detection. Boards must rely on various sources of information: complaints about barking from neighbors, superintendent observations during repairs or direct sightings of residents walking dogs on the premises. Once a pet is discovered, swift action is essential — there’s no room for delayed decision-making or extended deliberation.

SERVICE VERSUS EMOTIONAL SUPPORT ANIMALS. The landscape becomes even more complex when dealing with requests for reasonable accommodations under the Fair Housing Act. There are two distinct categories boards must understand.

Service dogs represent the more straightforward category. These must be dogs specifically trained for particular tasks, such as Seeing Eye dogs or seizure-alert dogs. They receive automatic protection under the law and cannot be refused regardless of building policies. Certain rules, such as requiring the animal to be leashed in common areas and not bark for long stretches or create a nuisance, can still be enforced.

Emotional support animals (ESAs) present a more nuanced situation. Unlike service dogs, ESAs can be any type of animal and don’t require specific training. However, they must be properly documented with evidence showing both a disability and the necessity of the animal for the resident’s use and enjoyment of their unit. These cases require careful evaluation through a reasonable accommodation process.

MANAGING REQUESTS. Boards should implement a structured process for handling accommodation requests. This process begins with requiring formal reasonable accommodation applications, accompanied by proper documentation of vaccinations and licenses for dogs. Verification from legitimate medical professionals is crucial, as is establishing clear compliance agreements. These agreements should address critical aspects of pet ownership in the building, from leash requirements and waste cleanup to noise control and adherence to general building rules. 

RED FLAGS. When reviewing accommodation requests, boards should remain vigilant about questionable documentation. Generic letters from distant providers who have never met the resident in person can and should be challenged. However, this must be done carefully — rejecting an accommodation request might trigger complaints to human rights agencies or Fair Housing authorities. Such disputes can escalate into expensive litigation requiring expert testimony and extensive legal proceedings. 

BOTTOM LINE. Strategic assessment becomes crucial when facing questionable claims. Boards must weigh the costs and benefits of enforcement, considering both the financial implications of potential litigation and the impact on community harmony. The most successful boards maintain building policies while recognizing when flexibility is legally required, creating a balanced approach that serves both the building’s interests and its legal obligations.