Tenants with Service Animals and a no pet policy

[Brett Schickler]

Hello, 

Please forgive me if this is common knowledge. But I'm still learning and I want to stay compliant with a fair housing laws and regulations. I'm an investor in upstate NY I have a vacant unit and a friend sent me a referral for a prospective tenant. After speaking with this individual they seemed like a good fit from my initial phone screening (I still have to do a complete screening and background check) except he told me at the end of our conversation that he has a dog (Micro bully, pitbull mix). I do not want pets in my units as I've had bad experiences in the past and being a multi unit property I'm nervous about my other tenants. I told him I do not except pets. He then told me that this dog WILL be a service dog and he's working on getting all the dogs documents to become a service animal. My question is, do I have to accept this tenant with a potentially dangerous breed? If so, I'm I allowed to ask for documentation proving the potential tenants dog is indeed a service animal? Or should I let the individual apply and try and find something else that disqualify him tenancy in my property? 

Thank you for any feed back 

[Joe Splitrock]

Originally posted by @Ihe O.:

Originally posted by @Matthew Paul:

@Ihe O. Of course you cant discriminate because of race . 

Yes and for the same reason as my example your defence will not succeed.

A

In the future you've told me it will be a service animal but right now it's a pet so I think I can deny you without discriminating.

B

In the future you've told me you will be a mixed race couple but right now you are a single white male so I think I can deny you without discriminating.

Case B will not work. Case A is just B in a different clothing. Neither are a viable defence.

Your logic is faulty. There is a major difference here between your two examples. Example A assumes a future hypothetical. In other words if the animal did not become a service animal in the future, it would remain a pet. It also ignores the fact that at the time of application, the animal was a pet. Example B would be illegal now or in the future, so there is no hypothetical. 

To further prove your faulty logic, let me give you a better example:

C

I park in a handicap spot and get a ticket because I don't have handicap license plates or window tag. I go to court and tell the judge that in the future I plan to be handicap after having a leg surgery. The judge will say, but you were not handicap at the time of parking there.

This example is very close to what we are talking about with ESA. A doctor or trained mental health professional is the only one that can "prescribe" an ESA for a patient. The fact that the animal was not "prescribed" at the time of application means it is not an ESA, it is a pet therefore same logic applies, they were not disabled at the time of application. 

Logic says, they are only seeking ESA certification as a way to bypass the landlords no pet rules. They are most likely going to download some internet certification that is totally bogus. Of course I am guessing, but that just further supports my point that it is a hypothetical situation. Until the landlord is presented with documentation to prove otherwise, it is just a pet.