Tenant Proves Disability Based on Hearing Loss and Diabetes

Landlord sued to evict rent-stabilized tenants for owner occupancy. Landlord claimed that he intended to use tenants' apartment for his personal use. Tenants, husband and wife, claimed that the wife was disabled because she was hard of hearing and had type II diabetes. She also said landlord had denied her request to keep a service dog to assist her. She had filed a complaint against landlord with the State Division of Human Rights (DHR) and asked the court to delay the case pending the outcome of a hearing on that issue. The court granted tenant's request.
After the DHR ruled that tenant was disabled, tenant asked the court to dismiss the case without a trial. She presented copies of sworn statements from two doctors who stated that tenant had, over time, developed severe hearing loss and had limited ability to engage in conversation. The doctors also stated their opinion that tenant couldn't engage in any gainful employment given her disability and her age. Tenant was over 55. She had worked in the fashion industry for many years but hadn't worked since 1994. Landlord argued that tenant left the workforce voluntarily because her husband could support her financially. The court ruled for tenants. Under the Rent Stabilization Code, a disability is the inability to engage in any substantial gainful employment by reason of medically provable physical or mental impairment that can be expected to last at least a year. Tenant's impairments prevented her from being employed. Her hearing loss and diabetes were permanent conditions. And landlord presented no proof that indicated there was a question of fact requiring a trial. Landlord also didn't request pretrial questioning and document disclosure from tenant. Since tenant was disabled, landlord must offer her a similar or better housing accommodation in the area at the same or lower regulated rent, or else landlord couldn't recover the apartment for owner occupancy. The court gave landlord 30 days to do so, or else the case would be dismissed.

Mozaffari v. Schatz: 2008 WL 4355437, L&T Index No. 058297/06 (9/22/08) (Civ. Ct. NY; Lebovits, J)