A New York appellate court has upheld a ruling that found a storage company and its manager engaged in unlawful discriminatory practices against tenants with disabilities. The decision affects the rights of individuals with disabilities seeking reasonable accommodations in housing situations. It emphasizes the importance of adhering to the state's Human Rights Law, which mandates fair treatment for individuals requiring special accommodations.
The case, officially known as Matter of New York State Division of Human Rights v. Derek Winnie, was decided on May 14, 2026, under docket number CV-25-0535. The court's ruling confirms that the actions taken by the respondents, Derek Winnie and Saugerties Self Storage Inc., constituted discrimination against tenants Heidy Trees and Craig Ostrander, who filed a complaint in 2017.
Background
The dispute began when Trees and Ostrander accused Winnie and his storage company of failing to accommodate Ostrander's disabilities while renting an apartment in Saugerties, New York. Specifically, they alleged that the company required a pet deposit and monthly fees for Ostrander's service animal, which was necessary for his daily functioning. Furthermore, they claimed that Winnie took steps to force them out of their apartment.
Initially, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) recommended dismissing the complaint, but the New York State Division of Human Rights (the petitioner) objected. The case was reopened, and despite further hearings, the ALJ again recommended dismissal. The Division's adjudication counsel then proposed an alternative order that found the respondents liable for housing discrimination and suggested compensatory and punitive damages for the tenants. In November 2022, the Commissioner of Human Rights issued a final order sustaining the complaint and adopting the proposed order.
The Ruling
The appellate court, including Judges Clark, Ceresia, Fisher, Powers, and Corcoran, reviewed the case and confirmed the Commissioner's order. The court stated, "The determination that respondents had discriminated against the tenants in violation of Human Rights Law is supported by substantial evidence." The judges noted that it is unlawful for a landlord to refuse reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities, which includes allowing service animals.
In its ruling, the court emphasized that the evidence showed Ostrander was indeed disabled and required his service dog for assistance. The court found that Winnie had intentionally made life difficult for the tenants, including blocking access to their apartment and creating a hostile living environment. The court concluded that the actions taken by Winnie were not only discriminatory but also violated the tenants' rights under the Human Rights Law.
Impact
This ruling is significant as it reinforces the protections afforded to individuals with disabilities under New York's Human Rights Law. It highlights the necessity for landlords and property managers to make reasonable accommodations for tenants who have disabilities. The court's decision serves as a reminder that discrimination in housing practices will not be tolerated and that violators may face serious penalties, including compensatory and punitive damages.
The ruling also sets a precedent for similar cases in the future, ensuring that tenants with disabilities can seek justice and that their rights are upheld. The court's decision underscores the importance of fair housing practices and the need for landlords to comply with state laws regarding accommodations for individuals with disabilities.
What's Next
Winnie has the option to appeal the court's decision, although details regarding any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. There are no related cases pending that were mentioned in the ruling. The outcome of this case may influence future housing discrimination claims, particularly those involving service animals and reasonable accommodations.