Don’t Dawdle Over Service Dogs

TAKEAWAY This case highlights the legal risks condo boards face when they postpone or mishandle disability-related accommodation requests. The Monarch board did not respond in a timely way to a request for a service dog, asked for medical records despite the condo having a stated policy against doing so and hired a psychiatrist without ever giving a clear decision on the request. Boards should respond promptly, in writing, whenever an accommodation request is made. They should also understand what qualifies as a disability under the various federal and state statutes affecting disabilities and know what documentation they are legally allowed to request. Finally, because claims against individual board members can move forward if there are allegations of their personal involvement, board members should ensure requests are handled quickly, carefully, and consistently to reduce the risk of liability.

CHARUGUNDIA V. LASALA

 

WHAT HAPPENED Kent and Marguerite Charugundla have lived at the Monarch Condominium on the upper east side of Manhattan since June 2000. A year after moving in the couple submitted a formal request to the board for a service dog. The request was based on Kent’s partial hearing loss and Marguerite’s mental health condition, which her physician described as requiring emotional support to manage stress and social interactions. In response, the board asked for additional documentation of Kent’s disability and it retained an independent psychiatrist to evaluate Marguerite. When the board didn’t definitively respond, the couple submitted another request in Feb 2022. Over two years later, in December 2024, the board notified the Charugundlas that it would review their request. Shortly thereafter, the couple filed suit against everyone - the Monarch, the board, the building owner and the independent psychiatrist - claiming failure-to-accommodate under the Fair Housing Act, New York Civic Rights Law, NYS Human Rights Law and the NYC Human Rights law.

IN COURT The defendants first argued that the suit was time-barred and should be dismissed, which the judge rejected. The judge said Kent’s claims could continue because he clearly explained his disability and why he may need a service dog, but Marguerite’s claims couldn’t because she did not provide enough detail about her disability. The claims against the psychiatrist were also dismissed. The judge gave the Charugundlas permission to fix and re-file parts of their lawsuit.

COUNSEL for the condo STEPHANIE RESNICK, JOHN FULLER Fox Rothschild; for the Chargundia’s SEAN HENNESSY, LUCAS MARKOWITZ Mitchell Sandler; Justice Arun Subramanian