Woman Wins $165K after Facing Eviction over Emotional Support Parrots

posted on : December 17, 2024 0 Comment

Source: NewsNation

A New York woman is set to be paid $165,000 in damages plus $585,000 for her apartment after the building attempted to evict her because of her three emotional support parrots.

Meril Lesser moved into the Rutherford, a 175-unit cooperative apartment building, in 1999. She lived there with the birds, which the Department of Justice said were to assist with her disabilities, without incident until March 2015. That’s when one of her neighbors started to complain about the alleged noise coming from Lesser’s apartment.

Over the course of a year, the New York City Department of Environmental Protection visited the building and Lesser’s apartment 15 times to conduct inspections. The DEP issues zero violations in any of those instances, with one inspector writing “no birds, no screeching — no noise,” on Feb. 7, 2016, The New York Post reported.

Rutherford did not conduct any evaluation over the noise themselves, and did not hire anyone with experience in soundproofing to address the neighbor’s complaints either, the DOJ said.

In March 2016, Lesser asked Rutherford to let her keep the parrots and gave them a letter from her psychiatrist. Despite this, the DOJ said, the apartment building began eviction proceedings against her in May 2016, causing Lesser “severe emotional harm.” Lesser left the apartment in July of that year, but Rutherford continued to maintain the eviction proceeding “well into 2024,” the Justice Department said.

Lesser filed a complaint with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development in May 2018, saying the eviction proceeding interfered with her fair housing rights. Under federal law, reasonable accommodations in “rules, policies, practices, and services” must be provided to afford equal housing opportunities to those with disabilities. The Federal Housing Administration allows people with disabilities to use a wide array of animals as support pets, as long as they do not pose a direct threat to others’ safety or health, and don’t damage the property.

Once HUD completed its investigation of Lesser’s case, it stated there was probable cause to believe that Rutherford violated the FHA. Given the choice to settle or go to court, Rutherford chose the letter, so the Justice Department filed suit.

TenantAlert provides the ONLY instant tenant screening service with LeaseGuarantee. The credit screening company with options and guarantees.

▪️ Select from a number of reports including credit background check, nationwide criminal, and nationwide eviction.

▪️ Add up to 4 applicants in one order to screen multiple roommates.

▪️ Use your application or send off the TenantAlert application when vetting tenants.

▪️ You can pay for the credit screening or send a link to your tenants for them to pay for the service.

▪️ TenantAlert has easy to read reports with summaries to help you determine if the applicant meets your qualifications or not.

▪️ They rate the applicant on a scale of 100 and offer a lease guarantee for up to $10,0000 of protection against damages, lost rent, or legal fees that you OR the tenant can pay (starting at $199/year).

Check out TenantAlert for your credit screening today!

The DOJ and Lesser prevailed in court, and now, because of a consent decree approved by U.S. District Judge Jennifer H. Rearden, Rutherford was ordered to pay Lesser $165,000 in damages and $585,000 to buy her shares. Rutherford also needs to dismiss the eviction proceeding against Lesser, per the decree, as well as “adopt a reasonable accommodation policy for assistance animals.”

This is the tenth such case brought in recent years by the Southern District of New York. According to U.S. Attorney Damian Williams, it’s also the “largest recovery the Department of Justice has ever obtained for a person with disabilities whose housing provider denied them their right to have an assistance animal.”

“This outcome should prompt all housing providers to consider carefully whether their policies and procedures comply with federal law,” Williams said in a statement. “We greatly appreciate our partners at HUD who provided invaluable assistance in the investigation and resolution of this matter.”

Peter Livingston, an attorney for the Rutherford co-op board, said his client was pleased to resolve the case, the Associated Press reported.