The New York Times has a full article this morning on the U.S. anti-discrimination case against East River Housing on behalf of three cooperators who have been denied accommodation for pets even after presenting doctors’ notes supporting the dogs’ therapeutic benefit.
The case is complicated, involving three different cooperators with different circumstances. All three have lost cases in housing court, but are now being championed by the U.S. Attorney, who believes that co-op policy does not make room for people with health disabilities.
Recently, this and other lawsuits against dog owners in the coop were singled out by the board of directors as a factor leading them to consider a rise in monthly maintenance fees.
What do you think if the situation? Leave your comments below.
The no dog restriction has been common to all who moved into the coop since I have been here. It seems to me that if a cooperator is in need of a dog for medical reasons it should be documented and presented to the coop board BEFORE the pet is brought into the coop. It is my understanding that some people bring in dogs without authorization and then when “caught” suddenly seek documentation of medical or psychological necessity. This kind of manipulation is unethical on several levels and makes those who are really in need of dogs for medical reasons in jeopardy of losing their pets. Shame on those who use this medical necessity excuse falsely to selfishly get around the rules of the cooperative.
There have always been dogs at east river. Enforcement has been selective.