IN RE: MASARYK TOWERS CORPORATION (2025)

Determination of respondent New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR), dated September 8, 2023, which, after a hearing, found that petitioners had engaged in unlawful housing discrimination, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [J. Machelle Sweeting, J.], entered December 22, 2023), dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence supports the finding by respondent DHR that petitioners unlawfully discriminated against respondent Darrel Flores by refusing to consider his request for a parking space as a reasonable accommodation or engage in an interactive process to determine if another accommodation was available (see Matter of White v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 160 A.D.3d 448, 71 N.Y.S.3d 346 [1st Dept. 2018];  see also Matter of Prospect Union Assoc. v. DeJesus, 167 A.D.3d 540, 543–544, 91 N.Y.S.3d 36 [1st Dept. 2018]).  Testimony adduced at the hearing established that an on-site parking space would affirmatively enhance Mr. Flores quality of life by ameliorating the effects of his disability (see Matter of 1 Toms Point Lane Corp. v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 176 A.D.3d 930, 932, 112 N.Y.S.3d 250 [2d Dept. 2019]), and that petitioners’ summary denial of his request without an interactive process constituted unlawful housing discrimination (see Matter of Washington v. Olatoye, 173 A.D.3d 467, 470, 103 N.Y.S.3d 388 [1st Dept. 2019]).  DHR considered the arguments raised by petitioners, including that they had no prior knowledge of Mr. Flores’ disability and that the Floreses’ ledger reflected maintenance arrears, but ultimately concluded that petitioners had engaged in unlawful discrimination based on the record as a whole (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 179, 408 N.Y.S.2d 54, 379 N.E.2d 1183 [1978];  Matter of Pittis v. New York City Loft Bd., 201 A.D.2d 388, 389, 607 N.Y.S.2d 355 [1st Dept. 1994];  Matter of State Div. of Human Rights v. County of Onondaga Sheriff's Dept., 71 N.Y.2d 623, 631, 528 N.Y.S.2d 802, 524 N.E.2d 123 [1988]).

We have considered petitioners’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing.  In conformity with A.L.J. Clancy's order, petitioners are directed to offer the Floreses the next available parking spot (emphasis added) and notwithstanding petitioners’ arguments, without distinction to petitioners’ internal parking waiting lists.