A shareholder-tenant of the NYC co-op kept a series of parrots in her apartment. In 2015 she acquired a new parrot that neighbors complained was particularly noisy. The landlord co-op corporation sent the tenant a number of letters warning her about the noise as a violation of her proprietary lease and house rules prohibiting excessive noise. 

After she received a notice to cure, the tenant gave the landlord a letter from a psychiatrist stating that her parrots were emotional support animals that assisted her in living with a disability. The co-op started an eviction proceeding against her, and her family requested that the landlord provide a reasonable accommodation to her that might involve soundproofing the unit or even waiving the noise rules for the parrots. The landlord co-op refused.

The tenant moved out and filed a housing discrimination complaint with HUD. HUD then referred the complaint to the U.S. Attorney's Office, which then filed a Fair Housing Act complaint against the landlord co-op corporation and its board president, claiming discrimination for refusing to provide tenant with a reasonable accommodation for her assistance animals and for retaliating against the tenant for having exercised rights protected by the Fair Housing Act. 

The landlord eventually entered into a consent order by which it agreed to pay the tenant $165,000 and to offer to buy her co-op shares for $585,000, which was about $85,000 greater than market value. The consent order also required the landlord to dismiss its pending eviction case against the tenant with prejudice, adopt a new reasonable accommodations policy, and obtain fair housing training [United States v. Rutherford Tenants Corp.: Index No. 21 cv 10383 (SDNY; 8/15/24; ____, J)].