Meril Lesser had lived peacefully with her three parrots—Layla, Ginger, and Curtis—in her Manhattan cooperative apartment since purchasing it in 1999. However, the tranquility was disrupted in 2015 when a neighbor, Charlotte Kullen, began voicing complaints about the birds' noise, claiming it was intolerable.
The conflict escalated after multiple noise complaints led the NYC Department of Environmental Protection to conduct inspections in Lesser's apartment. Despite 15 visits, inspectors found no evidence of excessive noise, with one report explicitly noting, “No birds, no screeching — no noise,” on February 7, 2016.
Eviction Threat Sparks Legal Battle Over Fair Housing
Despite the lack of evidence, Rutherford’s co-op board initiated eviction proceedings against Lesser in May 2016. In response, Lesser presented letters from her psychiatrist validating the necessity of her emotional support parrots for her mental well-being.
Unable to resolve the dispute internally, Lesser moved out and sublet her apartment. She proceeded to file a federal fair housing complaint with the Department of Housing and Urban Development in 2018, claiming discrimination based on her disability.
This federal intervention found probable cause that Lesser’s fair housing rights were violated, bringing heightened scrutiny to the case. The Rutherford’s board, faced with the seriousness of the allegations, chose to continue the case in federal court rather than settle.
Substantial Settlement and Policy Changes Enacted
The proceedings culminated in a significant legal suit by the Department of Justice against Rutherford. On August 16, a federal judge approved a consent decree that included financial settlements and essential policy revisions within the cooperative’s regulations.
As per the decree, Rutherford must now adopt a reasonable accommodation policy specifically for assistance animals. Additionally, the agreement allows federal oversight to ensure ongoing compliance with these newly implemented policies.
This decree not only ends the eviction processes in housing court against Lesser but also marks the largest recovery in a disability-related housing discrimination case centered around assistance animals to date.
Reaction From the Community and Legal Experts
The resolution has garnered significant attention, drawing comments from various stakeholders. Charlotte Kullen, the neighbor who initially complained, mentioned she still suffers from “nightmares of them screaming in my head.”
Conversely, Manhattan U.S. Attorney Damian Williams highlighted the broader implications of the legal outcome, stating, “This outcome should prompt all housing providers to consider carefully whether their policies and procedures comply with federal law.” His statement underscores the case’s potential to influence housing policies nationwide.
Peter Livingston, attorney for the Rutherford co-op board, expressed relief at the resolution, saying, "My client was pleased to resolve the case," indicating a mutual closure on the contentious issue.
Implications for Housing Rights and Emotional Support Animals
Legal experts argue that this outcome sets a landmark precedent for accommodating emotional support animals in residential areas. It highlights the critical nature of understanding and adhering to fair housing laws, especially concerning individuals’ medical needs for support animals.
The case of Meril Lesser vs. The Rutherford potentially paves the way for more inclusive housing practices nationwide. It serves as a critical reminder of the rights of individuals with disabilities and the obligations of housing providers under federal law.
This case not only rectifies a personal grievance but also strengthens the legal framework supporting fair accommodation for all residents, particularly those requiring assistance animals for their health and well-being.
