Judge José Rodriguez

Petitioner alleged proprietary lessor Da Costa of the subject premises, a cooperative apartment, and his husband Rivero, violated the lease by harboring a dog, in this summary holdover proceeding. Respondents alleged the dog was a therapy animal for Rivera who suffered from anxiety and depression. Da Costa moved to stay the proceeding arguing that despite letters from mental health professionals to petitioner it failed to accommodate Rivero's disability, thus Rivero commenced a Human Rights proceeding. Petitioner argued DHR did not have any special authority or expertise to justify staying the proceeding. It argued respondents failed to show they would be prejudiced if a stay was not granted, noting their claims may be fully litigated in housing court. The court agreed finding a stay was unwarranted, stating while DHR and Civil Court had concurrent jurisdiction, this action preceded the DHR action. Also, the relief sought could be obtained in this court as housing court had the necessary expertise to determine if respondent proved the necessity of the subject dog for Rivero's use and enjoyment of the subject coop. Therefore, the court denied respondents' order to show cause.

Judge José Rodriguez