At first blush, a court’s recent determination that a coop Board did not discriminate against shareholder on the basis of her disability seemed like a victory. The sting: the retaliation claims are sustained. 

The parties did not dispute that the plaintiff is a person with disabilities under the State’s Human Rights Law. Her mental impairment results in severe panic attacks, depression, seizure-like events, mania, and generalized anxiety disorder which require that she have a friend or family member stay with her at night. 

After a failed attempt to sublet the unit based on her plans to obtain medical treatment in California, the plaintiff made two accommodation requests to allow a “live in helper” and a “roommate” live in the unit due to her disability. The co-op Board denied her request based on the clear terms of the governing documents and the law allowing her to have a roommate or livein employee as long she, too, lives in the unit – thus no approval or accommodation was needed. In light of those responses, the shareholder commenced an action claiming discrimination, failure to provide an accommodation, and retaliation. 

The court dismissed the plaintiff’s discrimination claims, reasoning that letters between the parties establish that the plaintiff was informed, correctly, that she was permitted to have a live-in Home Health Aide to provide disability-related assistance or have a roommate, pursuant to RPL §235-f, if the Apartment was her primary residence, agreeing in substance that an accommodation was not necessary. Since the plaintiff is able to obtain the relief she seeks, i.e., have a roommate or live-in employee, the Board was “not obligated to accommodate her in the precise manner she desires,” meaning allowing the shareholder to effectively sublet her apartment. A “modification of the House Rules to permit [the plaintiff’s] guest to remain in the Apartment when she is away would, by definition, not affect [her] use and enjoyment of the Apartment, since [she] would not be there. Neither would this accommodation be related to her disability which, per the complaint, requires that someone is present when she is there.”

However, the court sustained the plaintiff’s claims of retaliation. She alleged that the Board retaliated against her by “barring her from subletting the Apartment; placing a security camera outside her apartment to track her movements; improperly assessing legal fees or penalties; failing to make requested repairs to the Apartment; and failing to respond to a COVID-19 Hardship Declaration she filed.” The plaintiff further alleges that the Board President told her she did not want her in the Building, and that she should move out. Whether determined to be true or later dismissed, the Board is left having to continue their defense despite a finding of nondiscrimination.

The takeaway… In addition to remaining cognizant of the laws pertaining to discrimination, Boards should consider ways to manage relationships and encounters with owners and shareholders in a way that minimizes residents’ opportunities to easily allege a basis for retaliation claims – claims that could linger well after the underlying discrimination claims have been dismissed.

New York State Div. of Human Rights v. 229 E. 28th St. Owners Corp. (2025 NY Slip Op 33230)

If you have questions on this or other issues that may impact your coop/condo operations, please contact Beth Gazes at bmg@gdblaw.com or 212-935-3131.