DECISION JUDGMENT
ADJUDGED that the petition is granted, on the law, with costs, and the determination is annulled.
The complainant in this matter charged the petitioner, a cooperative apartment building, with an unlawful discriminatory practice pursuant Human Rights Law § 296. She contends that her son suffers from dysthymia, a form of depression. Because of this disability, she contends that her son should be allowed a reasonable accommodation from the petitioner's rules, which prohibit the ownership of dogs, so that he may keep a companion dog in the apartment in order to alleviate his depression and thus use and enjoy the apartment.
To show that a violation of the Human Rights Law occurred and that a reasonable accommodation should have been made, the complainant must demonstrate that her son was disabled, that he was otherwise qualified for the tenancy, that because of his disability it was necessary for him to keep the dog in order for him to use and enjoy the apartment, and that reasonable accommodations can be made to allow him to keep the dog ( see Crossroads Apts. Assocs. v. LeBoo, 152 Misc.2d 830, 834-835).
Here, the complainant failed to demonstrate through either medical or psychological expert testimony or evidence that her son required a dog in order for him to use and enjoy the apartment. Accordingly, the respondent's determination was not supported by substantial evidence ( see Matter of Lahey v. Kelly, 71 N.Y.2d 135; 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 180).
SANTUCCI, J.P., FLORIO, SCHMIDT and RIVERA, JJ., concur.