Q&A: When Does “No Pets” Mean No Pets?

Dogs on a leash and pets not allowed icon

Q. I sit on the board of directors of a Nassau County cooperative. The building has a no-pets policy that residents are obliged to comply with. A few residents have cats that were grandfathered in prior to rules changing. On occasion, we’ve had residents claim they require a comfort dog—but the credentials provided to support the claim have been online ‘registrations’ with no substantial proof beyond that. My question is, what is the criteria for someone to have a comfort dog? Can we ask for a doctor’s certificate, or at least something more than a boilerplate internet registration? If someone’s dog does not meet requirements, what is the board’s recourse to have the dog removed?

—Not Comfortable With Comfort Animals

A. Heather Stiell, Esq., senior counsel at Lasser Law Group, PLLC, a real estate law firm serving New York City, Long Island, and Westchester, says, “Comfort animals, also sometimes called emotional support animals (ESAs), are considered a form of accommodation for persons who have a mental or emotional disability that affects their ability to function in their housing environment. The federal Fair Housing Act and New York State Human Rights Law both require that housing providers allow a ‘reasonable accommodation’ to any person with a disability that disrupts their functioning in the housing environment or prevents them from full use and enjoyment of their housing. 

“In order to verify that a resident requesting an accommodation has a disability and that an ESA is necessary, boards or landlords can request documentation to support the claimed disability and the need for an ESA, including requiring that a letter from a licensed mental health professional treating the individual be provided. Internet registration that does not include reliable documentation of a disability can be deemed insufficient by a board. 

“If a resident’s animal does not meet the legal criteria to qualify as an ESA, the board can issue violations and levy fines against the resident, if provided for in the building’s proprietary lease or house rules. Ultimately, for continued violations, the board could elect to terminate the resident’s proprietary lease and cancel his or her stock certificate.

“However, because an unfounded or incorrect determination could expose a board to a federal or state discrimination complaint and liability for civil penalties and damages, it is recommended that boards have ESA requests reviewed by their co-op’s attorney to help avoid potential discrimination claims.”

Related Articles

Symbol badge for pet animals not allowed zone

Are No-Pets Policies a Thing of the Past?

Reasonable Accommodations vs. Board Rules

Handicap symbol with roof isolated on orange background. 3d illustration

Senate Committee on Aging Pitches VITAL Act

Bill Aims to Address Housing Affordability & Accessibility Issues

Group of pets posing around a border collie; dog, cat, ferret, rabbit, bird, fish, rodent

‘Pandemic Pets’ in Multifamily Communities

Rules vs. Reasonable Accommodation



  • I have a couple of questions ????????? What about people that have allergies ? You know, allergic to pet hair and dander, don't they have the same right to enjoy their home as well ? And what about the people that have fears of animals, don't they have the same rights ?
  • In NY, with city, state and federal regulations and the respective agencies, the only people who have rights seem to be those who want an ESA, submit paperwork to Boards and Landlords, sometimes seemingly bogus, that is designed to let them have an ESA. There are online services who will provide, for a fee, letters that track legal language; they will arrange for "telemedicine" so you can be "examined" by a therapist a couple of thousand miles away, but who has a license in NY who listens to you and provides a letter as a medical professional that you need a dog to enjoy your apartment. It's time for co-ops to change their no-pet policies. Hopeless situation!
  • Unfortunately, the article omits a very important element of the NO PET rule; animals that become a "nuisance" to the other unit owners. We originally had a NO PET ruling until one unit owner wanted to purchase a small dog. There was a vote among the unit owners and resulted in a tie. So the NO PET ruling was upheld. Several months later the Unit Owner presented the Board with a Social Workers request to offer the girl friend of the unit owner (not actually allowed to live in the unit) the need for an Emotional Support animal. The Condo reconsidered and allowed the unit owner to obtain an animal for emotional support that will "never" create a nuisance for another unit owner. The unit owner inquired: What is a nuisance? Anything that will negatively effect the sense of another - sight, smell, hear, taste. The condo offered the unit owner a list of emotional support animals that "normally" do not create a nuisance and used the Parrot vs the Parakeet as the example. The Unit Owner elected to sell the unit and move on.