Zelmanovich v. Eastmore Owners Corp.
Docket Index No. 650443/22|Appeal No. 6464|Case No. 2025-03141|
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Civil
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02479
- Docket numbers
- Index No650443/22Appeal No6464Case No2025-03141
Appeal from an order denying defendant's motion to dismiss the second, third, and fourth causes of action in a housing discrimination and accommodation suit
Summary
The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the lower court's denial of Eastmore Owners Corp.'s motion to dismiss three causes of action brought by tenant Blanche Zelmanovich. The court held that Zelmanovich plausibly pled housing discrimination and failure to provide a reasonable accommodation under federal, state, and city fair housing and human rights laws. Her complaints about inaccurate noise reports, temporal proximity between notice of default and notice of her disability, differential treatment of a neighbor, and a psychologist's letter supporting an emotional support dog were sufficient at the pleading stage to create inferences of discrimination and failure to engage in an interactive accommodation process.
Issues Decided
- Whether the complaint plausibly alleges housing discrimination based on disability under the Fair Housing Act, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law.
- Whether plaintiff adequately pleaded that the defendant failed to provide a reasonable accommodation for her emotional support dog.
- Whether facts alleged (inaccurate noise complaints, timing of the notice of default, and differential treatment) give rise to an inference of discrimination.
Court's Reasoning
The court relied on the standard for pleading discrimination: membership in a protected class, qualification for tenancy, an adverse housing action, and circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. Allegations that noise complaints were inaccurate (including complaints when the dog was absent), that a notice of default followed shortly after plaintiff informed the landlord of her disability, and that a similarly situated neighbor was treated differently supported that inference. Additionally, the psychologist's letter and plaintiff's offer to meet alleged a request for accommodation and alleged failure by the landlord to engage in the interactive process, allowing the accommodation claim to survive dismissal.
Authorities Cited
- Fair Housing Act42 USC § 3601 et seq.
- New York City Human Rights LawAdministrative Code of the City of New York §§ 8-102, 8-107 et seq.
- New York State Human Rights LawExecutive Law § 296 et seq.
- Gibson v 526 W. 158th St. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp.221 AD3d 455 (1st Dept 2023)
- Pelepelin v City of New York189 AD3d 450 (1st Dept 2020)
- Mozaffari v New York State Div. of Human Rights63 AD3d 643 (1st Dept 2009)
- Matter of Masaryk Towers Corp. v New York State Div. of Human Rights234 AD3d 493 (1st Dept 2025)
Parties
- Plaintiff
- Blanche Zelmanovich
- Defendant
- Eastmore Owners Corp.
- Defendant-Respondent
- Adam G. Seidel
- Attorney
- Joseph Dimitrov (Litchfield Cavo LLP) for appellant
- Attorney
- Bryan T. Mohler (Pryor Cashman LLP) for respondent
- Judge
- Verna L. Saunders (Supreme Court, New York County)
- Judge
- Manzanet-Daniels, J.P.
- Judge
- Kennedy, J.
- Judge
- González, J.
- Judge
- Pitt-Burke, J.
- Judge
- Rosado, J.
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-23
- Lower court order entered
- 2025-04-25
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Proceed with discovery
Parties should conduct factual discovery to develop evidence about the noise complaints, timing of communications, and any differential treatment of neighbors.
- 2
Prepare for dispositive motions later
Either side may later move for summary judgment after discovery; the landlord should gather evidence justifying the notice of default, while the tenant should gather proof supporting the accuracy of her allegations and the need for accommodation.
- 3
Consider settlement discussions
Given the costs and risks of litigation, both parties might evaluate settlement or mediation to resolve the housing and accommodation disputes.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appellate court upheld the denial of the landlord's motion to dismiss, meaning the tenant's claims for disability discrimination and failure to accommodate her emotional support dog can proceed.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The parties in this case (the tenant Zelmanovich and Eastmore Owners Corp.) are directly affected, and the decision confirms that similar factual allegations can survive a motion to dismiss under fair housing and human rights laws.
- What happens next in the case?
- The case returns to the trial court for further proceedings (discovery, potential summary judgment, or trial) since the discrimination and accommodation claims were not dismissed.
- Why did the court allow the claims to proceed?
- Because the complaint alleged facts that, if true, create a plausible inference of discrimination and show a request for accommodation plus the landlord's failure to engage in an interactive process.
- Can the landlord appeal this decision further?
- Possibly — the landlord could seek leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, but this decision concerns denial of a motion to dismiss and is typically addressed later on the merits.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
Zelmanovich v Eastmore Owners Corp. - 2026 NY Slip Op 02479 Zelmanovich v Eastmore Owners Corp. 2026 NY Slip Op 02479 April 23, 2026 Appellate Division, First Department Blanche Zelmanovich, Plaintiff-Respondent, v Eastmore Owners Corp., Defendant-Appellant, Adam G. Seidel, Defendant-Respondent. Decided and Entered: April 23, 2026 Index No. 650443/22|Appeal No. 6464|Case No. 2025-03141| Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Kennedy, González, Pitt-Burke, Rosado, JJ. Litchfield Cavo LLP, New York (Joseph Dimitrov of counsel), for appellant. Pryor Cashman LLP, New York (Bryan T. Mohler of counsel), for Blanche Zelmanovich respondent. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Verna L. Saunders, J.), entered on or about April 25, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the motion of defendant Eastmore Owners Corp. to dismiss the second, third, and fourth causes of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Plaintiff stated causes of action for housing discrimination under the Fair Housing Act (42 USC § 3601 et seq.), the City Human Rights Law (Administrative Code of the City of New York §§ 8-102 and 8-107 et seq.), and the New York State Human Rights Law (Executive Law § 296 et seq.) by pleading that she is a member of a protected class as a disabled person, that she was qualified for the tenancy, that defendant caused her to suffer an adverse action regarding her housing, and that the circumstances surrounding the adverse action gave rise to an inference of discrimination ( see Gibson v 526 W. 158th St. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp. , 221 AD3d 455, 455 [1st Dept 2023]). Moreover, plaintiff sufficiently alleges under the relevant statutes that the noise complaints about her medically prescribed emotional support dog, which served as the basis for a notice of default, were inaccurate because her dog was well-behaved and did not bark incessantly, and that some of the complaints were registered at times when the dog was not even in the apartment. At the pleading stage of the litigation, these allegations adequately give rise to an inference of discrimination, as they suggest that Eastmore had no legitimate reason to send plaintiff a notice of default. Plaintiff further alleges that Eastmore sent her the notice of default less than a month after she informed it of her disability, and the close temporal proximity between these two events creates an inference that the notice of default was related to the disability ( see Pelepelin v City of New York , 189 AD3d 450, 452 [1st Dept 2020]). In addition, plaintiff pleads facts sufficient to suggest that she was subjected to disparate treatment as compared to her upstairs neighbor, who was also the subject of noise complaints but was not sent a notice of default. Plaintiff also sufficiently pleads failure to provide a reasonable accommodation under the relevant statutes. Plaintiff alleges that she sent Eastmore a letter from her psychologist explaining that she had severe anxiety and was prescribed an emotional support dog that enables her to enjoy and use her apartment. This allegation, taken as true, adequately pleads that plaintiff made a request for a reasonable accommodation ( see Mozaffari v New York State Div. of Human Rights , 63 AD3d 643, 644 [1st Dept 2009]). Plaintiff also alleges that Eastmore refused her offer to meet to discuss her dog, thus failing to engage in an interactive process to determine whether a reasonable accommodation was available ( see Matter of Masaryk Towers Corp. v New York State Div. of Human Rights , 234 AD3d 493, 493-494 [1st Dept 2025]). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: April 23, 2026