New York HOA and Co-op Pet Restrictions

New York pet restrictions at a glance

Section 1: Overview — How pet restrictions work in New York

Pet restrictions in New York come from the governing documents of one of three common-interest structures, and the main limits on them are the NYC Pet Law, within New York City, and fair housing law's assistance-animal requirement.¹ New York is structurally unusual because common-interest housing takes three legal forms, each with its own governing-law framework: the condominium, governed by the New York Condominium Act, Real Property Law Article 9-B, § 339-d et seq., where pet rules sit in the declaration, bylaws, and rules; the cooperative, a corporation governed by the Business Corporation Law, or the Cooperative Corporations Law, together with the proprietary lease, bylaws, and house rules, where the resident is a shareholder, not a unit owner; and the homeowner association, which is CC&R-primary with corporate formalities supplied by the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law.²

New York's pet-keeping protection is the NYC Pet Law for New York City multiple dwellings, not a statewide right, and it stands apart from California's Civil Code § 4715, a different mechanism that grants a statewide right to keep one pet.³ New York has not adopted the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act. Layered above all three structures is fair housing law's assistance-animal requirement, which flows from the federal Fair Housing Act and, in New York, from the strong New York State Human Rights Law and the broader New York City Human Rights Law.⁴ Nationally, New York sits among the structurally complex, strongly regulated states, and it is one of the few with genuine pet-specific law, concentrated in New York City. What follows sets out the legal framework, the operational rules, and recent activity.

Section 2: The legal framework for pet restrictions

2A. The three ownership structures, the source of pet authority, and the NYC Pet Law

Pet authority in New York depends first on which of three structures is involved. In a condominium, the New York Condominium Act, Real Property Law Article 9-B, § 339-d et seq., supplies the framework, and pet rules appear in the declaration, bylaws, and rules adopted by the board of managers.² In a cooperative — common in New York and especially in New York City — a corporation owns the building and the resident owns shares and holds a proprietary lease. The governing law is the Business Corporation Law, or the Cooperative Corporations Law, together with the certificate of incorporation, bylaws, proprietary lease, and house rules, not the Condominium Act.⁵ In a homeowner association, the CC&Rs control, with the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law providing corporate formalities. New York has no comprehensive planned-community statute and has not adopted UCIOA.

The distinctive New York overlay is the NYC Pet Law, NYC Administrative Code § 27-2009.1. It provides that "where a tenant in a multiple dwelling openly and notoriously for a period of three months or more following taking possession of a unit, harbors or has harbored a household pet ... and the owner or his or her agent has knowledge of this fact, and such owner fails within this three month period to commence a summary proceeding or action to enforce a lease provision prohibiting the keeping of such household pets, such lease provision shall be deemed waived."⁶ The waiver does not apply where the pet causes damage or a nuisance, and the New York City Housing Authority is exempt.⁶ The law reaches cooperatives and rental buildings throughout New York City; its application to condominiums is subject to a departmental split, with the Second Department applying it to condominium units in Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island — reasoning that if lawmakers had intended to exclude condominiums, they could have said so explicitly, as they did for NYCHA buildings — and the First Department holding it inapplicable to condominiums in Manhattan and the Bronx.⁷ Westchester County has enacted a comparable no-pet-clause waiver, Westchester County Code ch. 695; outside New York City and Westchester, no comparable local pet-law provision applies.⁸ This is New York's own provision, not California's Civil Code § 4715.

For any pet question, the order of precedence runs: federal and state — and, in New York City, city — fair housing law, mandatory, and the NYC Pet Law where it applies, first; then the governing documents, the declaration, proprietary lease, or CC&Rs; then bylaws and house rules. The rule that actually governs depends first on the structure and the location, New York City or not, then on the governing documents read against the fair housing floor.

2B. Federal fair housing constraints: assistance animals

The federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., bars disability discrimination in housing and requires reasonable accommodations in rules and policies whenever necessary for a person with a disability to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B).⁹ Condominiums, cooperatives, and homeowner associations are covered. Permitting an assistance animal despite a no-pet policy or pet restriction counts as a reasonable accommodation, and because assistance animals are not pets, no-pet bans, breed limits, size and weight limits, number limits, and pet fees and deposits simply do not reach them.

"Assistance animal" under the FHA runs broader than "service animal" under the ADA: it includes animals that perform tasks and animals that provide disability-related emotional support, with no training requirement for support animals.¹⁰ HUD's guidance on this subject was the January 28, 2020 notice FHEO-2020-01, which set out best practices for documentation. That posture has shifted: on September 17, 2025, HUD issued a "Notice of the Withdrawal of FHEO Guidance Documents" that withdrew FHEO-2020-01 and its 2013 predecessor along with several other guidance documents, and on May 22, 2026, HUD issued an enforcement memorandum stating that its Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity will generally pursue animal-accommodation cases only where the animal is individually trained to do work or perform tasks related to the disability — so an untrained emotional support animal is no longer treated as presumptively reasonable for federal enforcement purposes.¹¹ The FHA statute itself is unchanged, courts are not bound by HUD's enforcement posture, and, as discussed below, the New York State and City Human Rights Laws are unaffected and now provide protection greater than the current federal enforcement floor.¹¹

For a disability or disability-related need that is not obvious, an association may request reliable documentation. It may not require registration, certification, or licensing of the animal; a specific breed; professional training for a support animal; detailed medical records; or any pet deposit, pet fee, or additional insurance for the assistance animal.¹² An association may deny a specific assistance animal only on an individualized finding that it would impose an undue financial and administrative burden, would fundamentally alter operations, or that the specific animal poses a direct threat or would cause substantial physical damage no other accommodation could reduce; denial cannot rest on breed, size, or generalized fear, and the resident remains responsible for the animal's conduct and any damage.¹² The ADA is distinct: it governs public accommodations and government programs, not an association's internal residential operations, and it does not displace the FHA's broader assistance-animal protections for residents, though it may reach association facilities open to the public, such as a clubhouse rented to non-residents.¹⁰

2C. New York law overlay: state and city human rights law and dog law

The New York State Human Rights Law, Executive Law § 296, bars housing discrimination based on disability and expressly provides that a reasonable accommodation may include the use of an animal to alleviate the symptoms or effects of a disability; the New York State Division of Human Rights enforces it.¹³ Within New York City, the New York City Human Rights Law, NYC Administrative Code § 8-107, runs broader still: it is construed independently and liberally as a floor below which city protection may not fall, defines disability more expansively, and requires a "cooperative dialogue" with a person who requests an accommodation. The New York City Commission on Human Rights enforces it.¹⁴ Both operate alongside the FHA and in some respects provide greater protection; neither provides less, and neither authorizes denying a valid FHA accommodation. New York's appellate courts apply a "may be necessary" standard to the state-law accommodation analysis for an emotional support animal in housing.¹⁵

New York separately regulates service animals in public accommodations: Civil Rights Law § 47 and § 47-b guarantee a person with a disability accompanied by a guide, hearing, or service dog access to public facilities, including housing accommodations and places of public accommodation, without charge.¹⁶ As to misrepresentation, New York does not have a broad service-animal-fraud statute. Agriculture and Markets Law § 118(1)(c) makes it a violation to knowingly affix a false or improper identification tag designating a dog as a guide, service, therapy, or hearing dog, and there is no separate ESA-misrepresentation statute.¹⁷

New York's dog law rests on a statutory dangerous-dog scheme, common-law liability, and breed preemption. Agriculture and Markets Law § 123, formerly § 121, renumbered effective January 1, 2011, sets out the process for adjudicating a dog "dangerous" and the remedies and owner-liability consequences that follow.¹⁸ Owner liability for a dog-bite injury rests substantially on the common-law vicious-propensity rule, under which an owner is liable when the owner knew or should have known of the animal's vicious propensity; New York does not impose pure strict liability for every bite.¹⁸ Agriculture and Markets Law § 107(5) bars any municipality from regulating dangerous dogs in a manner specific as to breed, so breed-specific ordinances are preempted.¹⁹ That preemption binds municipalities, not private associations acting through their governing documents; an association's authority over an animal separately adjudicated dangerous is unaffected. Finally, the New York Attorney General's Real Estate Finance Bureau regulates condominium and cooperative offering plans at the offering and conversion stage under the Martin Act, General Business Law § 352-e et seq. — a disclosure-and-offering role, not ongoing operational oversight — and New York does not have statewide community association manager licensing.²⁰

Section 3: Operational rules and compliance obligations

A. Enforceable pet restrictions (what holds up)

In a condominium, restrictions in the declaration and duly adopted rules generally hold up against unit owners, subject to review for reasonableness and consistent application.² In a cooperative, a no-pet or restricted-pet clause in the proprietary lease and house rules generally holds up against shareholders, and cooperative boards retain broad authority under the business-judgment rule.⁵ In a homeowner association, CC&R-based pet restrictions generally hold up as covenants running with the land.² Within New York City, the NYC Pet Law's three-month waiver constrains enforcement of no-pet provisions in multiple dwellings, primarily affecting cooperatives and rentals — and condominiums in the Second Department — so a board that knows of an openly kept pet must begin enforcement within three months or lose the ability to enforce the provision as to that animal.⁶ Every restriction yields to the assistance-animal accommodation requirement.

B. Handling an assistance-animal request

When a resident requests an assistance animal, the association or cooperative should treat the animal as an accommodation, not a pet, and respond promptly and in good faith; within New York City, the Human Rights Law's cooperative-dialogue requirement makes a timely, documented exchange a legal obligation.¹⁴ If the disability or need is not obvious, the association may request reliable confirmation from a treating provider that the person has a disability and that the animal addresses a disability-related need, and, for a dog, proof of vaccination; it may not demand certification, a specific breed, professional training for a support animal, or detailed medical records.¹² Because the state and city laws may be read at least as protectively as the FHA, a denial is defensible only on an individualized direct-threat, undue-burden, or fundamental-alteration finding, never on breed, size, or generalized concern.¹³

C. Pet fees, deposits, and insurance

For ordinary pets, an association or cooperative may charge a pet fee or deposit, or require pet-related insurance, if the governing documents authorize it.² It may not charge any pet deposit, pet fee, or additional insurance premium for an assistance animal; the resident remains responsible for actual damage the animal causes.¹²

D. Enforcement, the NYC Pet Law, and disclosure

Pet violations are enforced through the mechanisms in each structure's governing documents — fines and proceedings under the declaration and rules, holdover or injunctive proceedings under a proprietary lease, and covenant enforcement under CC&Rs — and, within New York City, within the NYC Pet Law's three-month enforcement window for no-pet provisions in multiple dwellings.⁶ A significant dispute is tried in the Supreme Court, the trial court of general jurisdiction, appealed to the Appellate Division, and may reach the Court of Appeals, the state's highest court.²¹ Pet rules are disclosed to prospective buyers and shareholders through the governing documents and, at the offering stage, through the offering plan filed with the Attorney General under the Martin Act; state law also requires housing providers to give tenants notice of the right to request a reasonable accommodation.²²

Section 4: Recent legislative and judicial activity

A. Recent measures (past 24 months)

No New York State statute or New York City local law enacted in the past 24 months changes pet rules, the NYC Pet Law, service-animal misrepresentation, the Condominium Act, cooperative law, or dog law as they bear on New York associations and cooperatives. In the absence of a new state or city measure, the federal, state, and — in New York City — city assistance-animal frameworks and the NYC Pet Law control. The most consequential recent development is federal and sits outside New York's own framework: HUD's September 17, 2025 withdrawal of FHEO-2020-01 and its May 22, 2026 enforcement memorandum narrowing federal enforcement to individually trained animals, which increases the relative importance of New York's unchanged state and city Human Rights Laws.¹¹

B. Recent rulings (past 36 months)

No New York Court of Appeals or Appellate Division decision from the past 36 months addresses pet restrictions, the NYC Pet Law, or assistance-animal accommodation in a common-interest context. The controlling appellate authorities predate the window. On the NYC Pet Law's reach into condominiums, the First and Second Departments remain split: Board of Managers of Parkchester North Condominium v. Quiles, 234 A.D.2d 130 (1st Dept 1996), holds the Pet Law inapplicable to condominiums, while the Second Department applies it to condominium units.⁷ On the assistance-animal accommodation standard, Hollandale Apartments & Health Club, LLC v. Bonesteel, 173 A.D.3d 55 (3d Dept 2019), remains the leading modern statement, holding that a landlord's refusal to permit an emotional support animal for a disabled tenant was actionable under the FHA and the State Human Rights Law and that those laws require "only a determination that an accommodation 'may be necessary'," under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B) and Executive Law § 296(18)(2), rejecting the "actually necessary" standard of Matter of Kennedy St. Quad, Ltd. v. Nathanson, 62 A.D.3d 879 (2d Dept 2009).¹⁵

C. Active legislative debates

Senate Bill S9086, from the 2025-2026 session, introduced January 30, 2026 by Senator Anthony Palumbo and committed to the Committee on Disabilities, remains pending in committee. It would define "service animal" and "emotional support animal," add a new Real Property Law § 227-g setting housing-verification standards, and make fraudulently obtaining accommodation documentation a misdemeanor; it has not been enacted.²³ Its progress, and any New York response to HUD's narrowed federal enforcement posture, are the developments to watch.

Section 5: National positioning and related coverage

Among the states, New York belongs to the small group with a statutory pet-keeping protection, though its mechanism is unusual. California's Civil Code § 4715, granting a statewide right to keep at least one pet in a common-interest development, is the clearest example of the statutory model. New York's NYC Pet Law is a different mechanism — a waiver-by-inaction rule limited to New York City multiple dwellings, with a comparable Westchester County provision — not a statewide right. The large majority of states leave pet authority to the governing documents with no pet statute, and every state shares the same federal floor: the FHA's assistance-animal requirement. For a multi-state operator, New York requires identifying the structure — condominium, cooperative, or HOA — and the location, New York City or not, then applying the NYC Pet Law where relevant and the strong state and, in New York City, city human rights laws. New York's distinctive features are its three ownership structures, the NYC Pet Law, two-level fair housing law, statewide breed preemption, and inverted court nomenclature.

HOA Weekly's New York Pet Restrictions coverage updates quarterly as the Legislature, the New York City Council, and the courts act. The federal Fair Housing Act's assistance-animal framework applies to New York associations and cooperatives regardless of the state framework.

Footnotes

1. NYC Administrative Code § 27-2009.1 (NYC Pet Law) ↩
2. Real Property Law Article 9-B (Condominium Act), § 339-d et seq. ↩
3. Real Property Law § 339-d (short title, "Condominium Act") ↩
4. HUD, Assistance Animals (Fair Housing Act reasonable accommodation) ↩
5. New York Business Corporation Law (governing framework for cooperative corporations, applied with the proprietary lease) ↩
6. NYC Administrative Code § 27-2009.1 (three-month open-and-notorious waiver; damage/nuisance exception; NYCHA exemption) ↩
7. Board of Managers of Parkchester North Condominium v. Quiles, 234 A.D.2d 130 (1st Dept 1996) (Pet Law inapplicable to condominiums); Second Department applies the Pet Law to condominium units ↩
8. Westchester County Code ch. 695 (No Pet Clauses) ↩
9. Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., § 3604(f)(3)(B) (reasonable accommodation) ↩
10. HUD FHEO-2020-01, Assessing a Person's Request to Have an Animal as a Reasonable Accommodation (Jan. 28, 2020) (assistance animals include support animals with no training requirement) ↩
11. HUD "Notice of the Withdrawal of FHEO Guidance Documents" (Sept. 17, 2025) withdrawing FHEO-2020-01; and HUD May 22, 2026 enforcement memorandum narrowing enforcement to individually trained animals ↩
12. NYC Commission on Human Rights, Emotional Support Animals in Housing (documentation limits; no preemptive fees, deposits, or extra insurance) ↩
13. Executive Law § 296 (NY State Human Rights Law; animal as reasonable accommodation) ↩
14. NYC Administrative Code § 8-107, § 8-130 (NYC Human Rights Law; cooperative dialogue; liberal-construction floor) ↩
15. Hollandale Apartments & Health Club, LLC v. Bonesteel, 173 A.D.3d 55 (3d Dept 2019) ("may be necessary" standard; rejecting Matter of Kennedy St. Quad, Ltd. v. Nathanson, 62 A.D.3d 879 (2d Dept 2009)) ↩
16. Civil Rights Law § 47 and § 47-b (public-accommodations access for guide, hearing, and service dogs) ↩
17. Agriculture and Markets Law § 118(1)(c) (false service/guide/therapy/hearing dog identification tags) ↩
18. Agriculture and Markets Law § 123 (dangerous dogs; formerly § 121, renumbered eff. Jan. 1, 2011) ↩
19. Agriculture and Markets Law § 107(5) (municipalities may not regulate dangerous dogs in a manner specific as to breed) ↩
20. General Business Law Article 23-A (Martin Act), § 352-e et seq. (offering-plan regulation) ↩
21. New York State Unified Court System (Supreme Court is the trial court; Appellate Division is intermediate; Court of Appeals is the highest court) ↩
22. Executive Law § 296(18-a) (notice to tenants of the right to request reasonable accommodations) ↩
23. New York Senate Bill S9086 (2025-2026), Sen. Palumbo (service and emotional support animals; pending in the Committee on Disabilities) ↩