|
NYCooperative.com |
| HOME | ARTICLE LISTING |
YOUR HOME; A Ruling on Co-ops and Disability
By JAY ROMANO
THE New York City Commission on Human Rights has issued a wake-up
call of sorts to property owners -- including co-op
and condominium boards as well as landlords -- about discriminating
against tenants with disabilities.
In a decision in a case involving a wheelchair-bound shareholder
and a co-op on Central Park West, the commission
ordered the co-op to construct a ramp for the shareholder
to use to enter the building, to install automatic door openers
on elevators and in the building's lobby, and to pay the shareholder
$15,000 in compensation for the mental anguish caused by the co-op's
failure to provide ''reasonable accommodations'' when the shareholder
requested them. The $15,000 award was $5,000 more than a recommendation
in a report by an administrative law judge that formed the basis
for the commission's decision.
''The commission's decision and order puts co-ops and their
boards in the five boroughs on notice that disability-based discrimination
is absolutely illegal under the city's Human Rights Law, and that
violators will be called to account by the Commission on Human
Rights,'' the commission chairwoman, Marta B. Varela, said in
a press release issued with the decision on March 8.
Randolph E. Wills, the deputy commissioner in charge of the commission's
Law Enforcement Bureau, said that the Human Rights Law requires
property owners to make reasonable accommodations so that residents
with disabilities can enjoy the same rights as those without disabilities.
And, Mr. Wills said, in the case in question, that included the
right of a shareholder who used a wheelchair ''to leave her building
without fear of having to beg a car service driver or other stranger
for assistance.''
John Herrion, assistant program counsel for the Eastern Paralyzed
Veterans Association in Jackson Heights, Queens, said that the
shareholder, Ronnie Ellen Raymond, who was diagnosed with multiple
sclerosis in 1990, had experienced increasing difficulty with
balance and negotiating stairs. Mr. Herrion, who represented Ms.
Raymond in the case against the co-op at 325 Central
Park West, at 92d Street, said that despite the fact that the
shareholder offered to pay for installation of a sidewalk ramp
at the building's entrance stairs, the co-op board
rejected her offer.
Instead, Mr. Herrion said, the board decided to install an exterior
lift that could transport a person in a wheelchair from street
level down into a ''moat'' that ran along the front of the building.
Once in the moat, the person in the wheelchair would then be able
to enter the building through a basement door and from there gain
access to the elevator. That arrangement, Mr. Herrion said, was
not acceptable to Ms. Raymond and did not satisfy the ''reasonable
accommodation'' provision of the law.
''The board was essentially saying to the shareholder, 'You can
use the back door,' '' he said. ''But the Human Rights Commission
agreed that our request for the ramp was a reasonable one.'' Mara
B. Levin, the co-op's lawyer, declined comment on
the decision or on whether the board will appeal.
Real estate lawyers say the decision puts all property owners
on notice that they must take seriously any request for special
accommodations made by a disabled resident. ''I've been dealing
with several cases like this myself,'' said C. Jaye Berger, a
Manhattan real estate lawyer. ''But the problem with the Human
Rights Law is that there are no clear parameters to guide you.''
Ms. Berger said that while the law clearly requires property owners
to make ''reasonable accommodations'' for disabled residents,
it is impossible to define that term in the abstract. ''A decision
like this is extremely scary for a co-op,'' she
said. ''There's a huge potential for a building to have serious
claims. And the Human Rights Commission wields such broad authority
to decide what is appropriate, you have to take every request
by a disabled tenant quite seriously and engage in a lot of creative
thinking.''
Bruce Cholst, a Manhattan co-op lawyer, said that
the recent decision -- along with an apparent increase in the
number of elderly residents who choose to remain in their apartments
as they grow older -- makes it necessary for boards to prepare
for requests for reasonable accommodations in any number of different
situations. ''This is a slow-motion time-bomb in the early stages
of exploding,'' Mr. Cholst said, adding that there are two distinct
aspects of what may be required to provide a reasonable accommodation
for a disabled tenant or shareholder. ''One is whether to make
physical changes to the building,'' he said, ''and the other is
whether to suspend or change rules already in place.''
For example, he said, an older tenant would not have to be disabled
-- in the traditional sense of the word -- to have difficulty
opening heavy lobby or elevator doors. Nonetheless, Mr. Cholst
said, it would probably be appropriate in such a case for a property
owner to choose to install automatic doors like the ones ordered
by the commission in the Raymond case. On the other hand, he said,
a board being asked to make a reasonable accommodation for a person
who has a need for a pet for companionship might have to contemplate
rule changes if there is a no-pet rule in the building.
At the same time, Mr. Cholst said, it may also be possible for
a property owner to provide a reasonable accommodation for an
older or disabled tenant without having to resort to changing
the rules or the physical layout of the building, if all parties
strive to remain reasonable.
''What is usually at issue is not whether something needs to be
done, but how to do it,'' he said. ''If you have a disabled person
in a wheelchair, it might be possible for a neutral person --
maybe even a paid mediator -- to assure the resident that having
a building staff person always available to help them up a short
flight of stairs would be a reasonable alternative to constructing
a ramp.'' Indeed, Mr. Cholst said, one of the elements of ''reasonableness''
is whether a proposed solution to a problem is economically feasible
and practically achievable.
''A reasonable accommodation is one that does not impose undue
hardship on the property owner,'' he said.
Dennis Greenstein, another Manhattan co-op lawyer,
said that property owners -- particularly co-op
and condominium associations in which tenants are owners -- must
also prepare for the inevitable increase in the number of building
residents who will have special needs as they grow older. ''Most
boards are pretty good at dealing with financial planning and
capital improvement planning,'' he said. ''But now they have to
start thinking about people planning, too.''
In fact, Mr. Greenstein said, the best way to address a request
for help from a disabled or aging resident is to do so as quickly
as possible.
''I'm seeing more and more people come to boards saying they need
better accommodations, better access to the building,'' Mr. Greenstein
said. ''And in many cases, even though the board is making a good-faith
attempt to help the tenant, they may seem to be a little slow
in responding.'' When that happens, he said, the resident may
perceive the slow response as an indication that the board does
not sincerely wish to cooperate.
''And once a complaint gets filed,'' Mr. Greenstein said, ''it's
much more difficult to keep the discussion on a friendly basis.''