PLAYERS PLACE II CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant/ Cross-Respondent, v. K.P. and B.F., Defendants-Respondents/ Cross-Appellants.
Ansell Grimm & Aaron, PC, attorneys for appellant/cross-respondent (David J. Byrne, on the briefs). Freidel & Kramer, PC, attorneys for respondents/cross-appellants (Donna L. Freidel and Talbot B. Kramer Jr., on the briefs).
GOODEN BROWN, J.A.D.
The dispute in this case pits a condominium association's attempt to enforce a pet policy limiting the size of residents' pets against a resident's disability claim and related request for a reasonable accommodation to keep a dog that exceeded the weight limit as an emotional support animal. Plaintiff Players Place II Condominium Association, Inc., a condominium association in Gloucester Township created pursuant to New Jersey's Condominium Act, N.J.S.A. 46:8B-1 to -38, filed a complaint to restrain defendants B.F.[1] and K.P., residents of Player's Place II, from keeping a seventy-pound dog in their condominium unit in violation of the Association's rules and regulations restricting pet size to thirty pounds or less at maturity. Defendants filed a counterclaim alleging plaintiff violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3631, and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -50, by denying B.F.'s request to keep the dog as an emotional support animal as a reasonable accommodation for her disability.
Following a bench trial in the Chancery Division, the trial judge entered an order dated December 7, 2020, permitting defendants to keep the dog based on equitable principles, notwithstanding the violation of the Association's pet policy, but dismissing defendants' counterclaim based on a finding that B.F. was not "handicapped" or "disabled" under the NJLAD or the FHA to justify an accommodation or classifying the dog as an emotional support animal. Plaintiff appeals from the December 7 order, arguing the judge erred in failing to enforce the Association's rules and regulations given defendants' uncontroverted violation and failure to establish a disability-related exemption. Defendants cross-appeal, asserting the judge erred in finding that B.F. was not disabled and therefore not entitled to an accommodation, damages, and attorneys' fees under the NJLAD. In their cross-appeal, defendants have abandoned their claim under the FHA. Having considered the arguments and applicable law, we affirm.
Ansell Grimm & Aaron, PC, attorneys for appellant/cross-respondent (David J. Byrne, on the briefs). Freidel & Kramer, PC, attorneys for respondents/cross-appellants (Donna L. Freidel and Talbot B. Kramer Jr., on the briefs).
GOODEN BROWN, J.A.D.
The dispute in this case pits a condominium association's attempt to enforce a pet policy limiting the size of residents' pets against a resident's disability claim and related request for a reasonable accommodation to keep a dog that exceeded the weight limit as an emotional support animal. Plaintiff Players Place II Condominium Association, Inc., a condominium association in Gloucester Township created pursuant to New Jersey's Condominium Act, N.J.S.A. 46:8B-1 to -38, filed a complaint to restrain defendants B.F.[1] and K.P., residents of Player's Place II, from keeping a seventy-pound dog in their condominium unit in violation of the Association's rules and regulations restricting pet size to thirty pounds or less at maturity. Defendants filed a counterclaim alleging plaintiff violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3631, and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -50, by denying B.F.'s request to keep the dog as an emotional support animal as a reasonable accommodation for her disability.
Following a bench trial in the Chancery Division, the trial judge entered an order dated December 7, 2020, permitting defendants to keep the dog based on equitable principles, notwithstanding the violation of the Association's pet policy, but dismissing defendants' counterclaim based on a finding that B.F. was not "handicapped" or "disabled" under the NJLAD or the FHA to justify an accommodation or classifying the dog as an emotional support animal. Plaintiff appeals from the December 7 order, arguing the judge erred in failing to enforce the Association's rules and regulations given defendants' uncontroverted violation and failure to establish a disability-related exemption. Defendants cross-appeal, asserting the judge erred in finding that B.F. was not disabled and therefore not entitled to an accommodation, damages, and attorneys' fees under the NJLAD. In their cross-appeal, defendants have abandoned their claim under the FHA. Having considered the arguments and applicable law, we affirm.
