First published: May 2025

It Snowballed with “Snowball”

TAKEAWAY The story took a significant turn when an appellate court stepped in and ruled that the co-op couldn't simply kick Zelmanovich out of her apartment without first allowing the court to properly examine the facts. The higher court said that before any eviction could proceed, there needed to be a real determination about two key questions: Was Snowball's barking actually as disruptive as the co-op claimed? And did the co-op illegally discriminate against Zelmanovich? This case highlights an important issue that co-op boards should consider: Is it appropriate to try to evict a longtime resident when, as appears to be the situation here, all the complaints are coming from just one neighbor? There's another troubling aspect to this story. When Zelmanovich told the co-op that Snowball was her emotional support animal — meaning she needed the dog as a reasonable accommodation animal — the co-op and Zelmanovich should have communicated in an attempt to come to some kind of compromise or accommodation. Instead, it seems like both sides dug in their heels without really trying to solve the problem. Now, four years after this whole ordeal began - what started as a simple complaint about a barking dog — the legal battle shows no signs of ending. A case that might have been resolved through communication and goodwill has instead turned into a prolonged court fight that continues to drag on.

BLANCHE ZELMANOVICH v. EASTMORE OWNERS CORP. et al

WHAT HAPPENED Blanche Zelmanovich has lived at 240 East 76th Street in Manhattan for over twelve years. Her emotional support animal, a West Highland White Terrier named Snowball, is at the heart of this noise complaint, pitting one shareholder (who has a subtenant in his apartment) against another. The complaints about Snowball’s barking have primarily come from the subtenant who lives directly above Zelmanovich, Zelmanovich’s floor neighbors said they don’t have a problem with Snowball. Nevertheless, at the end of 2021, the co-op attempted to evict Zelmanovich and terminate her shares on the ground that her dog barks excessively. Zelmanovich, in turn, sued the co-op on the basis of the Fair Housing Act and various discrimination statutes and also sought an injunction to stop the co-op from terminating her lease. The co-op moved for judgment; in order for the co-op to be successful, it needed to show that there were no issues of fact.

IN COURT Zelmanovich opposed the motion and claimed a controversy exists as to whether she breached the lease. She also asserted that a “reasonable accommodation” could be made to minimize transfer of noise from her apartment, short of removing the dog. The co-op argued that there was no accommodation that could be made that would allow Snowball to bark continuously to the disturbance of others. Zelmanovich presented sworn testimony from neighbors denying that the dog causes excessive noise or any other disturbance. The court agreed with Zelmanovich, saying that at this early stage of the proceeding Zelmanovich had pleaded sufficient facts to allow her to proceed. There were prior decisions of the court (and the Appellate Court) which the co-op sought to rely on in support of dismissal. However, the court found that it could not rely on them because each of those decisions dealt with discrete issues.

COUNSEL for the plaintiff BRIAN T. MOHLER, RACHEL E. SHAW, ITAI Y. RAZ Pryor Cashman; for the defendants JOSEPH DIMITROV Litchfield Cavo; Justice Verna L. Saunders