Crossroads Apartments Associates v. LeBoo
New York City Court
152 Misc. 2d 830, 578 N.Y.S.2d 1004 (1991)
- Written by Alexander Hager-DeMyer, JD
Facts
Kenneth LeBoo (defendant) was a tenant of the federally funded Crossroads Apartments Associates (Crossroads) (plaintiff) for 12 years. LeBoo suffered from several mental disorders and had a history of alcohol abuse. LeBoo caused no problems at Crossroads until he adopted a cat to help with his intense anxiety and depression, both symptoms of his mental illnesses. Crossroads had a no-pet clause in the lease agreement, and upon discovering LeBoo’s cat, Crossroads began eviction proceedings in New York City Court. Both parties filed for summary judgment. LeBoo argued that the eviction action constituted discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act and the Fair Housing Act (FHA). LeBoo submitted affidavits from his psychiatrist, social worker, and pet-assisted therapist stating that due to his disability, his cat was necessary for him to use and enjoy his apartment. Crossroads argued that LeBoo failed to sufficiently show the cat’s necessity and that its presence violated the terms of his lease agreement, providing grounds for eviction. Crossroads submitted an affidavit from its own psychiatrist stating that no evidence showed the cat’s necessity to LeBoo’s treatment. Crossroads submitted a second affidavit from the apartment’s property manager stating that allowing LeBoo’s cat would create a substantial administrative burden and potential health problems for other tenants.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Schwartz, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.