You are here: / / ALTHOUGH COMPLAINANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SHE WAS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST...
,

ALTHOUGH COMPLAINANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SHE WAS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY THE COOPERATIVE BASED UPON A DISABILITY, COMPLAINANT DID DEMONSTRATE THE COOPERATIVE IMPROPERLY RETALIATED AGAINST HER AFTER SHE FILED THE DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT WITH THE NYS DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS.

Although the complainant, a shareholder in a cooperative, did not demonstrate she was discriminated against when the cooperative and the board (petitioners) refused to allow her to keep a dog in her apartment, the Second Department determined she did demonstrate petitioners retaliated against her for bringing her complaint to the New York State Division of Human Rights (SDHR). Complainant alleged she was disabled and the dog helped her cope with her disabilities:

To establish that a violation of the Human Rights Law occurred and that a reasonable accommodation should have been made, the complainant was required to demonstrate that she is disabled, that she is otherwise qualified for the tenancy, that because of her disability it is necessary for her to keep the dog in order for her to use and enjoy the apartment, and that reasonable accommodations could be made to allow her to keep the dog (see Executive Law § 296[2][a]…). …

… [T]he complainant failed to present medical or psychological evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the dog was actually necessary in order for her to enjoy the apartment. Notably, the complainant had resided in the apartment for more than 20 years without the dog. …

…[T]he complainant established that she participated in the protected activity of filing an SDHR discrimination complaint against the petitioners, the petitioners were aware of this action, and there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the petitioners’ retaliatory conduct, which included taking away the complainant’s designated parking space for a nine-day period, refusing to accept her maintenance checks, filing eviction proceedings against her, falsely informing her that the SDHR had ruled in the petitioners’ favor, and directing her to immediately remove her dog from her apartment … . Matter of Delkap Mgt., Inc. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 2016 NY Slip Op 08073, 2nd Dept 11-30-16

HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (ALTHOUGH COMPLAINANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SHE WAS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY THE COOPERATIVE BASED UPON A DISABILITY, COMPLAINANT DID DEMONSTRATE THE COOPERATIVE IMPROPERLY RETALIATED AGAINST COMPLAINANT AFTER SHE FILED THE DISCRIMINATION ACTION WITH THE NYS DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS)/DISABILITIES (HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, ALTHOUGH COMPLAINANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SHE WAS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY THE COOPERATIVE BASED UPON A DISABILITY, COMPLAINANT DID DEMONSTRATE THE COOPERATIVE IMPROPERLY RETALIATED AGAINST COMPLAINANT AFTER SHE FILED THE DISCRIMINATION ACTION WITH THE NYS DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS)/DISCRIMINATION (ALTHOUGH COMPLAINANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SHE WAS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY THE COOPERATIVE BASED UPON A DISABILITY, COMPLAINANT DID DEMONSTRATE THE COOPERATIVE IMPROPERLY RETALIATED AGAINST COMPLAINANT AFTER SHE FILED THE DISCRIMINATION ACTION WITH THE NYS DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS)/RETALIATION (ALTHOUGH COMPLAINANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SHE WAS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY THE COOPERATIVE BASED UPON A DISABILITY, COMPLAINANT DID DEMONSTRATE THE COOPERATIVE IMPROPERLY RETALIATED AGAINST COMPLAINANT AFTER SHE FILED THE DISCRIMINATION ACTION WITH THE NYS DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS)

/by
You might also like
THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DEFENDANT DEPARTMENT STORE SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE THE PAINT USED ON THE PARKING LOT SURFACE BECAME SLIPPERY WHEN WET AND WAS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR PEDESTRIAN-TRAFFIC AREAS (SECOND DEPT). ​
Mother Should Not Have Been Required to Contribute to Children’s Educational Expenses
THE PROCESS SERVER WAS AWARE DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS IN THE MILITARY; THE “AFFIX AND MAIL” METHOD OF SERVICE DID NOT OBTAIN JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).
THE JURY WAS NOT PROPERLY INSTRUCTED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, INDICTMENT COUNT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFENDANT DOCTORS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION CLAIMED THEY DID NOT HAVE POSSESSION OF THE VENOGRAM USED TO DIAGNOSE A BLOCKAGE IN A VEIN IN DEFENDANT’S LEG; PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR SANCTIONS FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
ISSUE WAS NEVER JOINED, THEREFORE THE ACTION COULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Struck by Sled—Village Immune from Liability Under General Obligations Law

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2022 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

RULES OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE CONCERNING THE CONTENTS OF AFFIDAVITS... EVEN IF THE MISREPRESENTATION THE HOME WAS TO BE OWNER-OCCUPIED WAS INNOCENTLY...