## Facts

- Crossroads Apartments Associates operated a federally assisted apartment complex in Rochester, New York; most units were subject to Section 8 housing assistance payments.
- Crossroads’ standard lease contained a strict no-pet clause barring animals of any kind in apartments.
- Kenneth LeBoo, a tenant since 1978 receiving Section 8 assistance, had a longstanding history of mental illness, including panic disorder with agoraphobia, mixed personality disorder, and chronic anxiety.
- In spring 1990, LeBoo obtained a cat, asserting it was needed to alleviate loneliness, anxiety, and depression associated with his disability.
- Crossroads commenced a summary eviction proceeding based solely on violation of the no-pet clause.
- LeBoo asserted defenses under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, claiming the cat was necessary for him to use and enjoy his dwelling, and sought an accommodation permitting the animal.
- LeBoo also argued estoppel/waiver based on alleged non-uniform enforcement of the no-pet rule against other tenants.
- LeBoo submitted affidavits from treating/support professionals stating the cat was therapeutically necessary; Crossroads submitted a psychiatric affidavit disputing necessity and a manager affidavit asserting administrative burdens and health concerns for other tenants.

## Issues

1. Whether a Section 8 tenant in federally assisted housing may assert § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the FHAA as defenses in a state summary eviction proceeding based on a no-pet clause.
2. Whether the record established as a matter of law that the cat was “necessary” for equal use and enjoyment of the dwelling and that an exception to the no-pet rule would be a “reasonable accommodation.”
3. Whether alleged non-uniform enforcement of the no-pet clause estopped the landlord from enforcing it against LeBoo.
4. Whether LeBoo was entitled to a jury trial where the relief sought was primarily reasonable accommodation/equitable in nature.

## Decision

- The court held LeBoo could raise § 504 and FHAA violations as an affirmative defense (and basis for equitable relief) in the summary eviction proceeding because the housing was federally assisted.
- The court denied Crossroads’ motion for summary judgment and denied LeBoo’s cross-motion for summary judgment due to material factual disputes on necessity and reasonableness of the requested accommodation.
- The court rejected LeBoo’s estoppel/selective enforcement defense, holding the landlord was not required to enforce the no-pet clause uniformly against all tenants as a condition of enforcement.
- The court struck LeBoo’s jury demand, characterizing the accommodation claim as equitable and therefore triable to the court.

## Legal Principles

- Federally assisted housing providers are subject to § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the FHAA, and those statutes may be invoked defensively in state eviction proceedings when the eviction is tied to an alleged failure to accommodate a disability.
- A housing provider must make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when necessary to afford a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.
- Whether an animal is necessary as a disability-related accommodation and whether allowing it is reasonable are fact-intensive determinations that often cannot be resolved on summary judgment when supported by competing expert evidence.
- Under New York landlord-tenant doctrine, selective enforcement of a lease provision (including a no-pet clause) is generally permitted; alleged non-uniform enforcement alone does not establish estoppel.
- Claims seeking modification of housing rules to prevent discriminatory eviction are equitable in nature and do not carry a right to a jury trial in this procedural setting.

## Conclusion

The court allowed a Section 8 tenant to assert federal disability-accommodation statutes as a defense to eviction for violating a no-pet clause, but denied summary judgment to both sides because necessity and reasonableness required factfinding; it also rejected selective-enforcement estoppel and struck the tenant’s jury demand.


Crossroads Apartments Assocs. v. LeBoo, 152 Misc. 2d 830, 578 N.Y.S.2d 1004 (Rochester City Ct. 1991)