First published: Dec 2025
Sublet by Another Name?
TAKEAWAY The court’s decision turned on whether Montali’s specific request was truly necessary for her to live in and enjoy her apartment. It concluded that other, less drastic options were available to address the limitations caused by her disability, and that her proposal went beyond what the law required — particularly where the request appeared to at least be partly driven by financial considerations rather than medical necessity. However, the motivations behind the co-op’s alleged retaliatory actions could not be resolved so easily, and the court said they warranted closer scrutiny. The case serves as a reminder that board members and managing agents should proceed carefully, and consult counsel, before communicating directly with residents on sensitive accommodation or enforcement issues that could later become the basis for litigation.
NYS DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS V. 229 E. 28TH ST. OWNERS CORP
WHAT HAPPENED Rori Montali, a shareholder in the six-story Kip’s Bay co-op, has a recognized mental health disability that causes severe panic attacks, depression, and related conditions. Because the co-op doesn’t allow sublets, it turned down Montali’s initial “reasonable accommodation” request to have a live-in home health aid pay rent. Montali claimed she needed this accommodation because she frequently travels to California for medical treatment and needs financial help to defray the caregiver’s costs. The co-op advised that a home health aide could live in the apartment only as an employee and asked for documentation of that employment, which Montali did not provide. After her accommodation requests were denied, Montali filed a disability discrimination complaint with HUD. She also alleged that the corporation had retaliated against her by placing a camera outside the apartment to track her movements, assessing improper legal fee “penalties” for subleasing, taking away her parking space for nine days, improperly informing her that the NYS Division of Human Rights had ruled against her, and failing to make requested repairs to her unit. Montali further claimed that the board president told her she was not wanted in the building and should move out.
IN COURT The co-op moved to dismiss the case, arguing that Montali was really seeking permission to sublet her apartment, not simply to have a second person live there. It also contended that Montali had other lawful options to have a full-time companion, as long as she did not charge that person rent. To support this claim, the co-op submitted documents showing that Montali had previously sublet the apartment and had advertised it for sublease before making her accommodation request. The court agreed with the co-op on this point. In addition, the court stated that the co-op is not obligated to provide the exact remedy that is being requested if other reasonable avenues exist that meet the disabled person’s needs. The co-op had demonstrated that Montali had several other available remedies under state law and the Proprietary Lease that would enable her to fulfill her request for companionship. However, the court allowed the retaliation claims to proceed. Accepting Montali’s allegations as true, it found that a fact-finder could infer retaliatory intent, and it declined to dismiss the board president and managing agent, noting that their involvement could not be ruled out without further discovery.
COUNSEL for the co-op BRYAN MAZZOLA, SANDRA HABIB Boyd Richards Parker & Colonelli; for Montali BABATUNDE AREMU NYS Division of Human Rights; Justice Judy H. Kim
