Woman Wins $165,000 for Attempted Eviction Over Emotional Support Parrots

Federal prosecutors on Monday announced a Manhattan woman who was threatened with eviction over her three emotional support parrots will receive a significant settlement of $165,000 in damages plus $585,000 for her apartment.

Meril Lesser, who has lived in the Rutherford co-op in Manhattan’s Gramercy Park since 1999, faced eviction after her neighbor, Charlotte Kullen, lodged numerous complaints about the noise from the parrots—Layla, Ginger and Curtis. Despite 15 inspections by the New York City Department of Environmental Protection, which found no evidence of excessive noise, the co-op board initiated eviction proceedings in May 2016.

However, on August 16, a federal judge approved a consent decree requiring the Rutherford co-op to pay Lesser $165,000 in damages and pay her $585,000 for her apartment, the Associated Press (AP) reported.

In addition to the financial settlement, the co-op is required to adopt new policies for accommodating assistance animals and will be subject to federal monitoring to ensure compliance. It must also dismiss the eviction proceeding against Lesser in housing court.

The settlement comes after Lesser, who had provided letters from her psychiatrist affirming her need for the birds for her mental health, eventually had to move out and sublet her apartment. She then filed a federal fair housing complaint in 2018, leading to a U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit after the Department of Housing and Urban Development found probable cause to support her claims that Rutherford had violated Lesser’s fair housing rights.

Newsweek reached out to the Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s office via email on Tuesday for comment.

In response to the settlement, Peter Livingston, an attorney for the Rutherford co-op board, said his client was pleased to resolve the case, the AP reported.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Damian Williams told the AP that the settlement marks the largest recovery ever obtained by the federal government for a disabled person whose housing provider denied their right to an assistance animal.

“This outcome should prompt all housing providers to consider carefully whether their policies and procedures comply with federal law,” Williams said.

According to the American Kennel Club, in order for an animal to legally be considered an emotional support animal (ESA), the pet needs to be prescribed by a licensed mental health professional to a person with a disabling mental illness. A therapist, psychologist or psychiatrist must determine that the presence of the animal is needed for the mental health of the patient.

Meanwhile, the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) notes a distinction between service animals and emotional support animals.

The ADA defines service animals as those who are “individually trained to do work or perform tasks for people with disabilities,” whereas emotional support animals or comfort animals provide companionship, relieve loneliness, and sometimes help with depression, anxiety and certain phobias.

However, the ADA advises that while emotional support animals are often used as part of a medical treatment plan as therapy animals, they are not considered service animals under the ADA.