Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
'Reasonable Accommodation,' Rent Regulation, and the Fair Housing Act
The federal Fair Housing Act Amendments prohibit discrimination in the sale or rental of a dwelling because of a handicap. 42 USC Section 3604(f)(1) and (f)(2). The statute also provides that discrimination includes “a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” Does the statute require a landlord to offer a handicapped occupant of a rent-regulated apartment the opportunity to rent, at a regulated price, a vacant apartment located on a lower floor? A federal district court has recently suggested that the statute might, indeed, impose such a requirement on the landlord.
The Bentley Case
For 24 years, tenant Bentley has rented a top-floor, rent-stabilized apartment in a four-story walk-up. She recently signed a 2-year renewal lease at a monthly rental of $820.64, but cancer surgery in 2004 has made it difficult for her to climb the stairs to get to her apartment. In October 2004, a first-floor apartment in the same building became vacant, and tenant requested to move to that apartment to avoid climbing the stairs. That apartment, which is also rent-stabilized, had previously rented for $833.58, but, upon vacancy, the rent stabilization law entitled landlord to a 20% increase, which would have brought the rent to $1000.30 per month. Landlord offered to rent the apartment to tenant at that price. Tenant, however, contended that landlord was obligated to rent the first-floor apartment to her at her existing regulated rent, noting that the financial burden to landlord would be limited because landlord would be entitled to a vacancy increase on tenant's top-floor apartment. Tenant brought an action in federal district court for the Eastern District of New York, contending that landlord's refusal to rent the apartment on tenant's terms constituted a violation of the federal Fair Housing Act Amendments. Landlord moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?